update_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the approval requirement and session-level domain approval, which is key behavioral context. It doesn't cover rejection behavior or plan updates, but for a planning tool this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then explaining the approval flow. No wasted words, well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 simple planning tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage timing, and post-approval behavior. It doesn't explain failure/rejection handling, but that's not critical for this tool type.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of context (e.g., domains get approved for the session, approach should be high-level), but these are already in the schema parameter descriptions. No additional semantic value beyond that.

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 the tool's purpose: to present a plan for user approval before actions. It specifies the resources (domains and approach) and the approval flow, distinguishing it from the sibling tools which are direct action tools.

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 explicitly says to use 'before taking actions' and explains that after approval, actions proceed without additional prompts. This gives clear context, though it doesn't name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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