plan_prepare

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation creates or updates a draft and is 'privacy-safe,' but it does not mention side effects, idempotency, validation behavior, whether existing plans are overwritten, or how plan_id/supersedes_plan_id affect the operation. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundant content, and it is appropriately sized for the limited information it provides.

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?

Despite the schema being rich and detailed, the tool is complex with five parameters, and the description is too minimal to provide complete guidance. It does not explain the drafting workflow, the meaning of key identifiers, or how dataset_profile is used. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still leaves major gaps in operational context.

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 description contains zero parameter guidance, and the schema description coverage is 0%. Top-level parameters like plan_id, project_path, dataset_profile, and supersedes_plan_id are not explained in the description, leaving the agent to rely on names and types alone. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Create or update') and the resource ('draft analysis plan'), and the qualifier 'privacy-safe' adds useful scope. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like plan_approve, run_prepare, and write_dofile, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 description implies usage for drafting or revising an analysis plan before approval or execution, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the workflow from sibling names and context.

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