draft_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the transformation (requirement to plan) and the output's structure, but does not state side effects, whether anything is persisted, or what kind of response format to expect. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs the verb, input, output, and the specific sections of the plan. There is no wasted wording or redundancy, and the most important information appears immediately.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context about the result: a reviewable 4-section plan with named sections. It lacks explicit when-to-use guidance and return-value detail, but the essence of the tool is well covered.

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 100%, with all three parameters already clearly described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, so it stays at the baseline without exceeding it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Turn') and a clear resource ('business requirement into a reviewable 4-section Odoo addon architecture plan'), also naming the concrete output sections. This clearly differentiates drafting a plan from siblings like generate_addon, validate_addon, or save_addon.

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 intended use is implied: if you have a business requirement and want a reviewable architecture plan, use this tool. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or how it compares to the alternative sibling tools, so the guidance remains indirect.

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