tidy_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that the tool never mutates anything, reports dependencies and risks, and refuses to issue a hash when an operation would break something. This gives a clear behavioral model without contradicting any structured metadata.

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 three sentences with no filler: it front-loads the primary purpose, then safety and failure behavior, then the critical pairing with tidy_apply. Every sentence adds value and supports correct invocation.

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 planning tool with three operation variants and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: non-mutating behavior, dependency/risk reporting, hash refusal on breakage, and which sibling executes the plan. It is fully adequate for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema with descriptions for operations, intent, and figmaFile. The tool description adds general context about planning but does not add detailed parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action ('Build a reviewable plan') and a concrete output ('return a hash'), distinguishing it from the sibling tidy_apply, which is explicitly named as the executor. There is no ambiguity about what tidy_plan does.

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 clear context: use it to build a reviewable plan before executing, and pair it with tidy_apply, the only tool that can execute the plan. It does not explicitly list exclusions against other siblings like tidy_status, but the planning-vs-execution distinction is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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