plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: replace=true 'drops tasks nobody started', the skeleton-task-first invariant, and the dependency ordering convention. It does not cover permissions/authority beyond the 'usually the lead's job' hint, error behavior, or what happens to already-started tasks under replace.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the workflow rule, then per-action glosses; every sentence does work. It is fairly dense and the 'Contracts first' editorial could be tighter, but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema and only three parameters at full coverage, so the description's job is to explain the actions, the replace semantics, and the ordering invariant — all of which it does. An agent has enough to select an action and construct a valid tasks payload without further guessing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the enum semantics in operational terms (create = save a plan, add = append, list = show the board) and by prescribing how the tasks payload should be shaped (own folder area, explicit dependencies), which the schema alone does not convey.

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 opening sentence gives a concrete verb+resource ('turn the locked master prompt into tasks') and then enumerates the three modes (create/add/list with plain-language glosses). It is clearly distinguishable from plan-level tooling versus the single-task siblings, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

It supplies real usage context: this is 'usually the lead's job', it is used after the master prompt is locked, and 'add tasks later' is the follow-up case. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to the alternative tools (task, claim) for single-task edits or claiming work.

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