Create plan properties

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds concrete behavioral detail: it requires operator write opt-in, may notify recipients, and may change tenant data. It also warns that the JSON body remains open, which helps the agent understand the flexible and potentially affecting nature of the call. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the action and endpoint, and nearly every clause adds operational context: path parameter clarification, open JSON warning, field list, authorization, and side effects. The unexplained 'See C07' and the duplicated reference URL add slight clutter, but overall the description remains dense and useful.

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 complex create operation with no output schema, the description provides the endpoint, required path identifier, body-field guidance, reference link, authorization requirement, and side effects. It omits response or error behavior, which is a minor gap, but an agent can still select and invoke the tool correctly from this definition.

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 schema's body parameter is a generic recursive 'any', so the description carries the main parameter burden by listing the known body fields and referring to Plan Property Objects and the API reference. It also clarifies that planId is the required path parameter despite the BODY PARAMETERS heading and notes confirm:true, all of which go well beyond the 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 opens with 'Create plan properties' and gives the exact POST endpoint, so the verb, resource, and operation are unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_plan_properties and modify_plan_properties without requiring the agent to inspect their schemas.

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 clearly establishes that this is a create/mutation operation and gives important usage prerequisites: operator write opt-in and confirm:true, plus side-effect risk. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the create action and write requirements provide sufficient context.

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