patchPlan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'updates' without mentioning effects, idempotency, required permissions, or error scenarios. The description is insufficient 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 extremely concise (one sentence) but potentially under-specified for the complexity of the tool. It sacrifices completeness for brevity. A score of 3 indicates it is concise but not well-balanced.

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 complex nested input schema (requestBody with many optional fields) and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the update does, which fields are updatable, or the format of the response. It is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'updates the specified Plan', which is already implied. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not add value over the schema.

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 the verb 'updates' and resource 'Plan', which is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like patchPlanRelationships or other patch tools (patchDocument, patchWorkItem), which update different resources. A score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., patchPlanRelationships for relationships, postPlans for creation). No prerequisites or when-not-to-use instructions are provided. This severely limits the usefulness for an agent selecting among siblings.

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