Describe a change without making it

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint: true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: 'Nothing is sent,' the plan costs units, and a write plan must include read-back verification because 'a successful response does not prove the outcome in this API.' This goes far beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives usage direction, then addresses a critical verification caveat. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance without redundancy or 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?

The description is complete for a tool with no output schema and only three parameters. It explains the returned identifier, the planning-only behavior, the cost disclosure, and the verify requirement, so an agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the purpose of 'calls' and emphasizes the 'verify' requirement, but it does not add significant parameter-level details beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Turn a list of intended API calls into a plan and return its identifier.' It clearly states the tool's non-executing nature with 'Nothing is sent,' and contrasts itself with direct_apply, making sibling differentiation explicit.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for every change' and explains why direct_apply cannot be used for raw requests because it 'accepts only an identifier and has no parameter for a request body.' It also gives conditional usage guidance: plans that write must carry 'verify' calls.

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