foundation_plan_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by enumerating the created artifacts: atomic checkpoints, PlanChanges, dependency-ordered steps, integration gates, and an acceptance gate, and it notes the operation happens 'in one transaction.' It does not mention idempotency, overwrite behavior, or permissions, but the disclosure is substantial.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the sentence contains no filler. It is dense and uses a semicolon to pack a lot of behavior into one sentence, but it remains appropriately sized for the complexity it communicates.

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 tool has ten parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably construct a valid invocation. It explains the domain behavior well but leaves the input contract almost entirely undocumented.

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 parameter-level guidance. None of the ten parameters such as goal, actor, reason, taskContextId, includeStructured, or requiredEvidenceLevel are explained, so an agent cannot determine what values to pass or how they affect the generated plan.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate one Foundation Plan from every non-deprecated unimplemented Block.' It clearly scopes what the tool does and distinguishes it from the architecture-only create_block behavior, so an agent can tell this apart from related plan/block operations.

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?

It explains that this is for explicit implementation/verification Plans and contrasts itself with 'plain architecture-only create_block.' This gives useful selection context, though it stops short of an explicit if-then rule such as 'use create_block when only architecture modeling is needed.'

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