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 reinforces and extends these by adding the 35 MiB bounded pipeline check and the explicit non-execution list, adding genuine context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core identity ('Non-executing planner') and packs scope, constraints, and exclusions efficiently. It is slightly long for a planner, but every clause earns its place.

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?

Covers the planning role, non-execution, pipeline bound, and upstream routing well for a 9-parameter tool. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, it could better describe the shape of the returned plan; it gestures at outputs ('exposes copy planning', 'recommends upstream') but not concretely.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps several parameters indirectly — creative_style/caption_mode (style/caption treatment), target_platforms (Facebook/LinkedIn/Instagram), and the media flags (source_file_size_bytes, source_duration_seconds, needs_deduplication, needs_full_timeline) via upstream routing. But goal and complex_media are never addressed, leaving 2 of 9 parameters unexplained.

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 role ('Non-executing Creative Director planner'), a resource scope ('authorized source media'), and a precise list of behaviors (checks pipeline, selects style/caption, exposes copy planning, recommends upstream). The explicit negative list — does not upload, create an order, charge, transfer, or publish — cleanly distinguishes it from executing tools.

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?

Provides actionable routing guidance (recommends ForensiScope upstream for oversized, long, deduplicated, or full-timeline media) and states clear non-execution constraints. However, it never names the sibling get_clip_capabilities or explains when to prefer one over the other, so the alternative-selection guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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