planner_create_bucket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not state permission requirements, whether bucket names must be unique within a plan, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is thin even with annotations present.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight completeness.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves critical gaps: parameter formats, name uniqueness, required permissions, and return behavior are all absent. An agent would have to guess at plan_ref semantics.

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 and does not. It does not clarify whether plan_ref expects a plan ID or a plan name, nor any constraints on the bucket name. The parameters are only described by their bare schema titles.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a bucket in a Planner plan.' An agent can distinguish this from planner_rename_bucket, planner_delete_bucket, and planner_list_buckets by the verb, but the description does not explicitly name or contrast with those 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. The only implied usage is that it creates a new bucket, which is derivable from the name alone.

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