processing_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety behavior is covered structurally. The description adds the 'loaded-effect' scope, which is useful, but it largely restates the non-mutating property already present in the annotations.

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 sentence states the operation, the resource scope, and the safety constraint with no filler. Every word contributes to an agent's ability to understand and invoke the tool.

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 planning tool with only one parameter, a rich nested schema, and strong annotation coverage, the description covers the essential context. It could more explicitly route the agent to processing_apply_plan for the execution phase, but nothing needed to call it safely is missing.

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%, and the request parameter already has a detailed description: 'Restrained processing goals resolved only against effects that are loaded, Atlas-matched, adapter-backed, and controllable.' The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Plan'), a specific resource ('loaded-effect processing'), and a clear constraint ('without enabling writes or mutating FL'). This distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings like processing_apply_plan and establishes exactly what the tool does.

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 phrase 'without enabling writes or mutating FL' clearly signals this is the safe planning step and not the execution step. It does not name a specific alternative tool, such as processing_apply_plan, leaving the when-not-to-use guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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