observation_plan_write_file

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

The description adds useful context beyond the schema by stating the tool validates the plan, writes it to a file, and does not load/start a sequence. It also mentions the plan_id is 'stamped on write' indirectly through schema, but the description itself doesn't describe side effects of overwriting an existing file, permission requirements, or return behavior. With no annotations provided, it could still disclose more.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: first sentence covers the action, resource, and key limitation; second sentence reinforces scope. No filler, every clause carries meaning.

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 nested plan object with no schema-level parameter descriptions, the description gives a high-level overview of what the plan should include, plus a critical caveat about not loading the plan. Given there is an output schema, return values are covered. Minor gaps: no mention of file path, overwrite behavior, or validation failure outcomes, but the core agent task is well supported.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description summarizes the plan's contents (target coordinates, acquisition intent, light/calibration frames, batching, cooling, autofocus, guiding, constraints), but it doesn't explain how the single parameter (plan) relates to those fields or that it must be a complete ObservationPlan object. The schema's own field descriptions are sparse, so the description helps but doesn't fully compensate.

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 the tool's action ('Validates and writes'), the resource ('observation plan to a JSON file'), and its downstream purpose ('for later use by sequence_load_plan'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from sequence_load_plan and sequence_start, making its scope obvious even among siblings.

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 usage — this is the tool to use when you want to create a plan file but not execute it — and explicitly states it does not load or start a sequence. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you need to persist a plan before loading it' nor does it contrast when to use observation_plan_get_progress or other siblings.

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