Build the execution plan

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

The description adds significant context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, stating the tool 'holds no write credentials by design and executes nothing itself.' It also discloses key behaviors such as requiring 'an explicit operator go quoting the plan hash' for MUTATES steps and that 'Held assets are excluded from every step,' which are not captured by 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?

The description is composed of four focused sentences, each covering distinct aspects: what the plan is, design constraints, step routing, mutation approval, and HOLD behavior. There is no filler or redundancy, and the structure front-loads the main purpose.

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?

With an output schema present and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers essential behavioral rules, including HOLD outcomes, asset exclusion, and mutation approval. It does not describe the plan's exact JSON structure, but that is handled by the output schema, making this sufficiently complete for a planning tool.

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 schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters, including the rank source and json_output behavior. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond confirming the plan is typed and ordered, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as producing a 'Typed, ordered workflow for executing a chokepoint' and clarifies that it builds a plan rather than executing it, saying 'executes nothing itself.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like preflight and verify, though the verb 'build' comes mainly from the title rather than the description itself.

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 use after a pre-flight: 'A HOLD pre-flight yields no plan, only the evidence,' and explains that MUTATES steps require operator go. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to choose plan over payload or other siblings, so usage guidance is more implied than explicit.

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