set_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only says 'change' without mentioning whether the operation is permanent, requires specific permissions, or how unlisted fields are treated. It does not disclose side effects or reversibility, which is a significant gap 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action, but it is too short to convey necessary details. It is not wastefully verbose, but it lacks structure to guide the agent beyond the basic operation.

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 tool has six parameters and is a mutation, yet the description provides minimal context. It does not explain prerequisites, return values, or edge cases, making it incomplete. While an output schema exists, it does not compensate for the lack of input semantics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It mentions name, description, and dimensions (width, height), covering four of six, but does not explain the role of 'handle' or clarify that 'plan_uid' is the identifier. The description offers minimal added meaning beyond field names.

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 clearly states the action ('Изменить' = change) and the resource (plan), and lists the fields affected (name, description, dimensions). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like add_plan (create) and remove_plan (delete). The resource and operation are specific and actionable.

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 implies usage when modifying an existing plan, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_plan, add_plan, or remove_plan. It gives no prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context to inference.

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