plan_template_completion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool plans edits and does not mutate the open Hangul window ('The completed copy does not mutate the already-open same Hangul window — open it afterward'). It also specifies structural addressing. Slightly missing details on error behavior, but overall transparent.

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 front-loaded with the main action but includes multiple clauses and instructions that could be condensed. It is functional but not maximally concise, e.g., the sentence about named fields could be shorter.

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 the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides workflow context (gather values first, use complete_addressed_template) and clarifies structural addressing. It lacks detail on the compact parameter, but overall is sufficiently complete for planning.

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 'file mode' but does not describe the 'path' parameter (file path) or the 'compact' boolean parameter. This leaves the agent guessing about their meaning and impact.

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 tool plans whole-template completion in file mode and returns addressable edit targets. It uses specific verbs ('plan', 'return') and distinguishes from siblings like 'complete_addressed_template' by specifying the workflow.

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 guides when to use this tool: 'start in file mode instead of mixing live field writes' and 'Gather ALL values first, then hand one complete addressed edits array to complete_addressed_template'. It also forbids replacing repeated text without explicit scope, providing clear do's and don'ts.

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