plan_suggest_adjustments

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces non-mutation ('Never changes the stored plan') and adds the approval-required behavior. It does not disclose potential external data pulls (openWorldHint) or rate limits, but given the annotation coverage, the added approval context is valuable. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the critical non-mutation and approval requirement. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return details are covered. The description covers the action, the non-mutating nature, and the follow-up step. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a plan must exist) or error conditions, but for a suggestion tool these are minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'wearable aggregates' which hints that use_wearables toggles that, but it never explicitly describes as_of or how use_wearables behaves. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Evaluate the current plan's adjustment_rules against adherence and wearable aggregates') and clearly defines the output ('proposal (JSON Patch + proposed plan)'). It also names the next step (plan_save), distinguishing it from the save tool. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: it is a non-mutating tool that produces a proposal, and the user must be asked for approval before calling plan_save. It implies when to use it (before saving changes) but does not explicitly contrast with plan_validate or other analysis tools. Still, the workflow is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.