create_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a creation/mutation tool (implied by 'Create'), requires specific permissions ('Requires API key (provider account)'), and mentions billing periods. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success/failure.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains bundling and pricing, and the third covers prerequisites. There is no wasted text.

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?

Given the complexity (a creation tool with 5 required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, context, and prerequisites but lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational constraints like rate limits, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that 'service_ids' correspond to 'your services' and 'price' is 'recurring', but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Create a subscription plan'), identifies the resource ('as a provider on the402.ai'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning bundling services at recurring prices, which differentiates it from tools like 'create_service' or 'manage_plan'.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('as a provider' and 'Bundle one or more of your services at a recurring price'), and mentions that 'Agents can subscribe for monthly or annual access', which implies usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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