Modify a plan endpoint

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: it requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, and warns of side effects like notifying recipients or changing tenant data. It also clarifies the ambiguity around body fields (id vs plan), which goes beyond 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 is moderately long but every sentence adds value: it gives the endpoint, clarifies ambiguities, notes a typo in samples, lists body fields, and states permission/side-effect requirements. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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 should cover return behavior, but it focuses on side effects and requirements instead. It includes a reference URL for full API details, which compensates. It covers permission, body structure, and ambiguity, though it omits response format. Given the complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 has generic body and query definitions with limited descriptions (75% coverage). The description adds meaningful detail by listing the expected body fields (plan, name, url, endpointType, authenticationType, authentication, id) and clarifying that both id and plan are allowed, reducing ambiguity. It also points to the reference for exact payload structure.

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 ('Modify a plan endpoint') and gives the exact HTTP method and path, making it distinct from siblings like create_plan_endpoint and delete_a_plan_endpoint. It also provides a reference URL for further detail.

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 when to use this tool (to modify an existing plan endpoint) and explicitly states prerequisites: operator write opt-in and confirm:true. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough. The side-effect warning ('may notify recipients or change tenant data') gives usage context.

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