plan_apex

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully reinforces that boundary by disclaiming export creation — an agent could otherwise assume 'build' produces artifacts. It still doesn't say whether the draft is returned as text or written somewhere, which matters for a non-destructive tool.

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?

Two short sentences, no padding, with the purpose front-loaded and the exclusion immediately after. Efficient, though the extreme terseness is what leaves the gaps flagged elsewhere.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what a 'draft mapping and acceptance checklist' looks like or where it lands; it doesn't. Combined with the undocumented 'path' argument, an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call.

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?

There is a single required 'path' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — path to an APEX app, a directory, a form definition? With low coverage the description must compensate and it does not.

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 gives a concrete verb and artifact: builds a draft APEX region/trigger mapping plus an acceptance checklist. It is distinguishable from siblings like draft_api and migration_risks, though it never names them. Purpose is clear, sibling routing is implicit.

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 only usage signal is the negative scope 'Does not create an APEX export', which implies this is a pre-export planning step. There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus analyze_form, migration_risks, or draft_api, nor any stated prerequisites.

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