Modify communication plan

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

Annotations already convey that this is destructive and not read-only. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: it requires an operator write opt-in, requires confirm:true, and warns that the operation may notify recipients or change tenant data. There is no contradiction with the 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 compact and dense, front-loading the action, endpoint, body fields, reference, requirements, and a warning in three sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers endpoint, body fields, a documentation reference, required confirmation, and potential side effects. It omits details like the response shape or error behavior, but the reference and generic schema make it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke.

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 is a generic object with high coverage but little semantic detail, so the description's explicit list of body fields (id, name, description, enabled, loggingLevel, accessibleByAll, position) adds real value. It does not deeply explain each field, but it provides guidance beyond the generic 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 clearly identifies a modify operation on a communication plan, with a specific endpoint (POST /api/xm/1/plans) and a list of relevant body fields. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling create/get/delete plan tools, but the verb, endpoint, and title make the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives context about prerequisites (operator write opt-in and confirm:true) and side effects, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus creating or deleting a plan. Intended usage is implied by the title and endpoint rather than directly guided.

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