console_plan

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: it writes analysis-job.json and run_dir/effective-method.txt, hardlinks into a new <folder>_<ext> directory while leaving the original untouched, and sets session.current_job_path on success. However, it never confirms or explains the non-idempotent framing (the hardlink step is described as incremental/top-up, which an agent could read as repeat-safe), leaving a mild tension with idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by a scannable per-parameter block, with no filler sentences. It is very long, but for 11 undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage most of the length is load-bearing; a few passages (e.g. the LBM resolution chain detail) go deeper than an agent likely needs to select and call 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 non-read-only tool with no output schema and 11 undocumented parameters, the description covers prerequisites, failure codes, side effects, and the success outcome (session.current_job_path). What is thin is the shape of the returned plan object beyond the job path and the enumerated error identifiers, so an agent knows the exit paths but not the full payload.

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 carry the full load, and it does: all 11 parameters are explained with defaults, accepted values, mutual exclusions (lbm_file vs library_mode='msp_only'), precedence rules, and the error each violation produces. It adds semantics the bare schema cannot, e.g. that .mdproject/.mddata are unusable and that missing LBM resolution silently yields zero identifications.

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?

Opening line states a specific verb and artifact: builds an MS-DIAL Console execution plan and generates analysis-job.json. It is clearly distinguishable from console_run (executes) and console_method_candidates (only lists candidates), both of which are named in the body.

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?

Extensive when-to-use guidance: method_file omission behavior with METHOD_FILE_CHOICE_REQUIRED, keep_extension handling with MIXED_RAW_FORMATS and the instruction to re-call with a choice, measure='peak_area_above_zero' stopping with UNSUPPORTED_AREA_CONSOLE, and explicit routing to console_method_candidates and console_run. Alternatives and failure exits are spelled out rather than implied.

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