Plan exact template materialization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the one-time receipt requirement and the destination-checking behavior, providing context beyond the structured fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence conveys the essential workflow and key constraint, so it is concise. However, it is somewhat dense and starts with a prerequisite action ('require') rather than the primary operation, making it slightly less immediately parseable.

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 tool is complex (plan vs apply, receipt flow, exact selector, no output schema), and the description does not explain return values, what 'check the destination' entails, or the relationship with confirm_selection tools. The sibling list provides context, but the description alone leaves gaps.

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 descriptions cover only exactSelector and previewReceipt (33%). The description reinforces these two parameter roles ('provider-qualified selector' and 'one-time confirmed exact preview receipt') but does not explain providerId, destination, allowNetwork, or sourcePackDir. Given the low schema coverage, some compensation exists but remains incomplete.

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 identifies a planning/materialization check operation: it requires a preview receipt, resolves a provider-qualified selector, and checks the destination without writing files. This distinguishes it from the sibling apply_materialize by explicitly stating 'without writing files.'

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 when to use it: after obtaining a confirmed preview receipt and before actual materialization, since it does not write files. It doesn't name the apply counterpart explicitly, but the sibling list includes figure_library_apply_materialize, and the phrase 'without writing files' signals this is the planning alternative.

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