Create a plan form

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-readonly behavior; the description adds that it 'may notify recipients or change tenant data,' which is important side-effect disclosure beyond the annotations. The confirm:true and operator opt-in requirements also clarify the authorization/safety bar. No contradiction with annotations.

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 packs the purpose, endpoint, body fields, a documentation link, and required operational flags into three sentences. Each clause adds distinct value, though the long reference URL adds noise. It is reasonably front-loaded ('Create a plan form' first).

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 destructive create operation with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, path variable, body field names, required confirm flag, authentication prerequisite, and side-effect warnings. It does not describe the response shape or error cases, but these are not essential for invoking the tool; the reference link covers details. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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?

The input schema only explicitly documents name (and allows arbitrary additional body properties); the description enumerates the other body fields (description, triggerType, mobileEnabled, uiEnabled, apiEnabled), compensating for the 75% schema coverage. It also reinforces that confirm must be true. This gives the agent substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 form') and the HTTP endpoint, which clearly identifies the resource and operation. The verb 'create' distinguishes it from sibling tools like xmatters_modify_a_plan_form and the various get_* tools.

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?

It provides clear context: the endpoint, the required confirm flag, and the operator opt-in prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools (e.g., modify_a_plan_form) or state when not to use it, 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.