save_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and clearly discloses the destructive overwrite behavior, the requirement for a complete and valid object, and the need to fetch current state to avoid data loss. It does not cover auth or error behavior, but the key behavioral traits are transparent.

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?

Three focused sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then concise usage guidance. No wasted words or redundant content.

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 save/overwrite tool with a nested object, the description gives the essential workflow (read schema, fetch current state) and the completeness requirement. It omits return value or failure behavior, but for a write operation the context is largely sufficient.

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 descriptions already explain both parameters (project_id as UUID, plan_data as Complete PlanData JSON object). The description adds 'valid' and 'overwrite' semantics, but this is marginal; it does not meaningfully go beyond the schema.

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 'Save (overwrite) the PlanData JSON for a project', using a specific verb and resource, and the overwrite qualifier distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_plan and validate_plan.

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?

It provides explicit context: read plan_schema first, fetch current state with get_plan before modifying. This gives clear prerequisites and sequencing, though it does not enumerate when not to use it (e.g., for validation).

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