submit_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. It notes that advisory collision warnings are returned, implying a non-blocking behavior, but it does not state that this is a mutating operation, whether authorization is needed, or what happens on validation failure. The word 'record' hints at persistence but is not explicit.

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, efficient sentence of 13 words that front-loads the action and return value. There is no redundant phrasing, and it is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain parameter roles, preconditions, or the structure of a valid plan. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing input semantics, making it hard for an agent to correctly construct a request.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the 11 parameters, including required fields like family_id, request_id, spec_id, actor_id, intent, and proposed_slices. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic comments, leaving agents without guidance on how to fill in the fields.

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 a specific action (record) on a specific resource (the mandatory pre-execution plan) and the return value (advisory collision warnings). It distinguishes from siblings like close_plan and start_slice by focusing on the initial recording phase, making purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'pre-execution plan' implies this tool is used before execution, giving conditional usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., close_plan or start_slice), leaving the agent to infer the typical workflow.

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