v2_rf_planning

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

The description adds high-value behavior the annotations omit: a run re-plans channels on every AP, applies them, and overrides manual channel choices. However, this directly conflicts with the declared readOnlyHint=true / destructiveHint=false, so the hint set can no longer be trusted and the agent must treat the metadata as inconsistent.

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 tight sentences: identity, what it reads, how to trigger, then a front-loaded warning. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is returned (current plan settings, run history with before/after experience index, last-run status), which an agent needs. It is only incomplete on the undocumented siteId/confirm 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 only 33% (only run is documented). The description adds the trigger semantics of run:true but never explains siteId or the confirm:true requirement that the schema mentions, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('AI RF Planning', reads plan settings/run history/status, can trigger a run) and scopes it precisely as the controller's channel/width/power optimiser, which distinguishes it from adjacent siblings such as v2_rf_health or v2_channel_util.

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?

Makes the branch condition explicit: read by default, or pass run:true to trigger a new planning run. It does not name a competing sibling tool or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a full 5.

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