load_financial_plan_from_reference

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the copy behavior, default dry-run mode, and heavy-operation warning. It does not detail side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior) or error handling, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is short and structured, front-loading the purpose. The internal developer note about local/Beta could be trimmed, but overall it's efficient and 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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main functional flow but lacks detail on return values, parameter ranges, and edge cases. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for a complex copy operation.

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?

Only the 'confirm' parameter gets partial explanation beyond the schema. Other critical parameters like 'version_key' and 'scale_factor' are unexplained, and schema coverage is only 20%, so the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 clearly states the verb (load) and resource (financial plan) with a specific action (copying from reference project). It distinguishes from siblings like 'discover_financial_plan_info' and 'read_financial_plan' by focusing on copying.

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 explicitly mentions the dry-run default and warns that it's a heavy operation, advising to preview first. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives like 'upsert_financial_plan'.

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