add_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: parent_uid nests the plan into another, and image_path is a PNG/JPEG placed in Content/ with plan dimensions taken from its header. However, it omits side effects, failure modes, or behavior when both image_path and width/height are supplied. Partial disclosure, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words. The parameter explanations are packed efficiently, making it easy to scan.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps: meaning of handle, default behavior without image_path, interaction of width/height with image_path, and any prerequisites. Even though an output schema exists, an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call without more detail on these parameters.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It covers parent_uid and image_path (the non-obvious ones), but leaves handle, name, width, height, and description unaddressed. In particular, the interplay between width/height and image_path (are they overridden?) is not clarified. Since it explains only 2 of 7 parameters, it falls short.

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 opens with 'Создать план' (Create a plan), a clear verb+resource pairing. It also explains two parameters' roles (parent_uid, image_path), adding specificity. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like set_plan, so it stops short of a 5, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_plan or remove_plan. No conditions, exclusions, or scenarios are mentioned. An agent must infer from the name that it creates a new plan, but no explicit routing advice is given.

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