plan_submission

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description matches that by saying it creates a plan. It additionally covers reuse of compatible drafts, blocking on conflicts, immutable results, required manual confirmations, and automatic-release behavior reporting — all beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three dense sentences, each adding useful information with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and constraints are laid out clearly without repetition.

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?

The description states what the tool does and its main constraints, but no output schema exists and the description does not mention return behavior beyond reporting 'automatic-release behavior'. Given the tool’s nested parameter complexity and 0% schema coverage, more context about what a plan contains and how it is later used would make it complete.

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 should compensate. It only illuminates manualConfirmations ('explicit manual confirmations') and indirectly buildId ('one exact processed build'), leaving root, platform, and version unexplained. For 5 required parameters, this is a meaningful gap.

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 states a specific action: creating a fresh, immutable, submission-only plan for one processed build. It distinguishes itself from sibling plan_* tools by limiting scope to submission and by noting that only exact processed builds are eligible.

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?

Use is clearly implied for submission planning, and contextual rules are provided: compatible drafts are reused, conflicting submissions block planning. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the 'submission-only' scope and blocking conditions make the intended context clear.

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