ralph.write_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does disclose the core mutating behavior ('Write or update') and the constrained directory, which is useful. However, it does not explain whether an existing file is fully overwritten, whether directories are created, or what return/error behavior to expect.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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 simple 2-parameter write tool, the description covers what the tool does, where files go, and when to use it. The schema covers relativePath. Missing detail about content expectations and return behavior, but given the low complexity and self-explaining parameter names, the description is largely sufficient.

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 only 50%: relativePath is documented, but content is not. The description adds general context about planning documents but does not describe expected content format, markdown conventions, or constraints. The parameter names are reasonably self-explaining, so this is a minor but real gap.

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 action ('Write or update'), the resource ('a planning document'), and the location ('.github/plans/'). It also adds lifecycle context ('before Phase 1 PRD normalization, or auxiliary planning docs'), which helps separate it from write_prd. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling plan-writing tools like write_epic_plan or upsert_spec.

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 gives a concrete when-to-use signal: draft plans before Phase 1 PRD normalization or auxiliary planning docs. This is clear workflow context. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives, but the intended timing and document type provide enough guidance for correct selection.

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