Record an implementation plan

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

No annotations provide readOnlyHint, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond 'persist', such as idempotency, side effects, or authorization requirements. The description carries the burden but adds little.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and depth. It could be expanded without becoming verbose to cover essential details.

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?

Given 5 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits return behavior, parameter semantics, and important sequencing details beyond the one sentence.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameter's purpose or constraints. The agent must rely solely on the parameter names and properties.

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 tool's purpose: persisting a concrete plan after inspection and before writes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like inspect_repository or task_begin, so the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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 provides a clear when-to-use context ('after inspection and before any write'), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or alternatives. The agent must infer from sibling names.

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