planner_delete_plan

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description isn't carrying the safety burden alone. What it adds is genuinely new: the deletion is permanent (no undo/trash) and it cascades to all buckets and tasks, which is exactly the blast-radius information an agent needs before confirming.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the destructive scope front-loaded ahead of the confirmation directive. Nothing repeated from the title or annotations.

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 destructive, cascade-deleting tool the description covers impact and confirmation well, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining hole is the one input: plan_ref is undefined everywhere, so the description is not fully sufficient to invoke the tool 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?

The single required parameter, plan_ref, has 0% schema description coverage — no type detail, format, or example — and the description says nothing about it either. The agent cannot tell whether plan_ref is an opaque ID, a name, or a path, which matters a lot for a permanent destructive operation.

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 ('Permanently delete a Planner plan') plus the cascade scope ('with ALL its buckets and tasks'). The cascade detail is what separates it from planner_delete_bucket and planner_delete_task, so an agent can pick the right deletion tool without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a concrete procedural prerequisite — 'Confirm with the user first' — which is the key gating instruction for a destructive tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the resource is unambiguous enough that routing is implied by the sibling names.

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