Plan a direct-intake Working Revision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the important disclosure that the server never calls a model or executes code, which clarifies side-effect-free behavior beyond the basic read-only hint. It does not explain whether the plan is persisted, but the immutable plan wording implies a pure return.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that clearly state the primary action and a key safety guarantee. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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 complex tool with 28 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes a valid intake, what a Working Revision plan contains, or what the response looks like. The agent has almost no operational context.

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%, yet the description provides no parameter guidance whatsoever. With 28 parameters, many nested and with enums, the agent has no idea which fields are relevant or how to populate them. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's function: validating user-confirmed intake and returning an immutable Working Revision plan. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from model-calling or code-execution tools, which differentiates it from potential siblings like apply_working_revision.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_working_revision or other plan tools. It lacks explicit guidance on the create/update flow or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling context.

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