plan_create

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the write/destructive nature is signalled. The description adds that output is written as Markdown and JSON to a path, but does not disclose overwrite behavior, permission needs, or what an existing plan at path is replaced with.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose then format detail. Dense but every clause maps to a real aspect of the schema; no filler.

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 12-parameter, destructively-writing tool with a deep nested policy object and no output schema, the description leaves major areas (policy, target, path/overwrite semantics, risks) unexplained. It covers only a fraction of what an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It usefully explains the requirements anyOf (strings of R01 IDs vs objects preserving source clauses/acceptance criteria), and mentions documents, questions, and scenarios. But it omits name, goal, target kinds, path default, risks, sessionId, apiDocuments, and the entire nested policy object.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Save a host/model-authored test plan as Markdown and JSON.' Clear what the tool produces. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like test_generate or requirements_import, but the artifact (plan) is named.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The agent can't tell from the text when to call plan_create versus test_generate or requirements_import; nothing states ordering or exclusions.

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