plan_provisioning_changes

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral boundaries: 'Preserves omitted capabilities, never deletes signing resources or rewrites projects' and warns that 'Capability changes can invalidate profiles.' This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two dense sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and caveats packed into the second sentence. Every clause earns its place, and there is no restating of schema or annotation fields.

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 no output schema, describing the result as an 'immutable approval plan' is helpful but thin. The missing `root` parameter semantics and the lack of explicit tool routing leave some gaps, although the simple two-parameter surface keeps the description workable.

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 compensate. It partially clarifies `identifiers` as 'exact identifiers explicitly selected from AppStore provisioning.json', but the required `root` parameter is never explained, and the identifier format/meaning is only implied by the schema pattern. This is insufficient for a two-required-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Read exact identifiers explicitly selected from AppStore provisioning.json and produce an immutable approval plan.' It distinguishes itself from fellow planning tools by scoping to provisioning identifiers and explicitly excluding signing-resource/project mutation.

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 as a planning step through 'approval plan', and states that 'regeneration and APNs credentials are separate owner tasks.' However, it never names an alternative tool or an explicit 'use when / use instead' condition, leaving routing to inference.

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