plan_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool replaces the file's entire contents (destructive overwrite), which is the most important side effect. It also explains the content contract for downstream execution by implement, though it does not mention prerequisites like init/arming or return 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scope, overwrite behavior, and content requirements. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: target location, overwrite semantics, and the content standard needed for successful handoff to implement. It relies on the schema for auth/session details, which is acceptable given the schema is complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that content should be detailed step-by-step instructions, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for file, content, project, and session_token.

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 specific action ('Write a .codex-bridge/ plan file'), names the exact file types (PLAN.md, SPEC.md, TASKS.md), and clearly distinguishes itself from generic file tools like write_file by framing this as the handoff that implement consumes on its next run.

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 gives clear usage context: this is the handoff mechanism for implement, and plan files must contain executable step-by-step instructions. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the .codex-bridge/ scope and implement handoff make the intended use case clear.

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