Create a plan constant

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

Annotations already indicate a write (readOnlyHint=false) and destructive side effects (destructiveHint=true). The description adds context beyond annotations: it requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, and warns that it may notify recipients or change tenant data. This aligns with the annotations and provides actionable behavioral details.

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 concise and front-loaded: it starts with the action and endpoint, then lists body fields, prerequisites, and a reference link. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is well-structured and 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 create operation, the description provides the endpoint, body fields, requirements, and a reference URL. It does not describe the response or error conditions, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. The inclusion of write opt-in and notification side effects adds operational completeness.

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 75% and the description compensates for the generic 'body' schema by explicitly listing expected fields (name, value, description). It does not elaborate on planId or confirm beyond what the schema already states, but the added body field information is valuable. The description enhances parameter understanding despite high schema coverage.

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 ('Create a plan constant') with a clear verb and resource, and includes the HTTP method and endpoint. It lists the body fields (name, value, description), which distinguishes it from sibling operations like modify or delete. There is no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 for creating new plan constants but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as xmatters_modify_a_plan_constant or xmatters_delete_a_plan_constant. It provides prerequisites (operator write opt-in, confirm:true) but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it.

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