plan_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that the tool produces a preview and warnings rather than directly applying a change, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state side-effect safety, authorization needs, or failure behavior.

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 compact sentence front-loaded with the verb and key artifacts. There is no filler or repetition, although the brevity comes at the cost of missing input guidance.

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?

The output schema likely covers return values, but the description is otherwise incomplete: it does not explain what name/params mean, how the plan connects to apply_write, or any preconditions. For a tool with a free-form params object, this is too thin.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to 'name' or 'params'. 'params' is an open object with no documented keys, and 'name' could be an action identifier or something else; an agent cannot reliably construct valid input. The only related term, plan_id, appears as an output artifact, not an input.

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 concrete operation ('prepare a write') and names the artifacts it produces (preview, warnings, plan_id). This distinguishes it at the intent level from apply_write, though it never explicitly names the sibling.

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 verb 'prepare' plus preview/warnings/plan_id implies this is a pre-flight step before apply_write rather than an actual mutation. However, it never explicitly states when to use it vs. alternatives or when not to use it.

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