postPlans

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so statements like 'it is not guaranteed idempotent' largely restate structured data. The description does add real context beyond the annotations: repeating the call produces additional resources (a bulk/multi-create hazard) and the dry-run preview is returned as plain text plus structured content. It says nothing about required permissions or what happens on partial failure across a list.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the safety warning follows immediately. There is minor redundancy ('Effect: creates a new resource' plus the non-idempotency note both restate annotation-level facts), but no sentence is wasted and the dry-run tip earns its space.

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?

With a rich nested schema, full parameter coverage, an output schema, and explicit write-safety annotations, the description covers the remaining gap an agent needs — safely previewing a write before committing. The only missing piece is error/partial-failure behavior for a multi-item create, which is a smaller concern given the available annotations.

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% and every parameter, including the deeply nested requestBody structure, is annotated in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only elaborates on `dry_run`, adding nothing about projectId scoping or the shape of `data`, which the schema already handles.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource ('Creates a list of Plans') that an agent can match against siblings like getPlans, patchPlan, and deletePlans. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so an agent still has to infer the distinction, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 does not state when to reach for this tool versus patchPlan or postPlanRelationships, so selection guidance is only implied by the verb. It does give an actionable operational tip — run with `dry_run: true` first — which is genuinely useful pre-call guidance even if it is about method rather than tool choice.

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