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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context: it never consumes the provided revision, it is limited to structured plans, and Connections see only their own live or owner-test plans (an authorization/visibility constraint). These are useful non-obvious behaviors beyond the 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?

It is front-loaded with the most important constraints (structured-plans-only, never uses the revision) before the explanatory example and id guidance. Dense but each sentence carries weight; slightly list-like rather than smoothly structured.

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 complex nested schema and the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values, and it covers eligibility, id sourcing, and scope visibility. It is largely complete, with the gap being undocumented meanings for several optional parameters.

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?

With only 17% schema description coverage, the description should carry more of the param burden. It does explain taskId semantics well (full id vs planId, prefix/orderReference accepted) and gives a concrete example for constraintUpdates.availableMinutes, but framingMode, audioPriority, replacementBeats, and the structuredChanges object are left unexplained in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Preview a revision') and explicitly scopes the behavior against the sibling shoot_plan_revise with 'without using it' and 'Never uses the included revision.' It also states the three concrete outputs (what would change, which checked shots would be cleared, whether it still fits), so an agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from applying a 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?

It states eligibility rules ('Structured plans only; older free-text plans cannot be previewed') and how to source the id ('Use the full taskId from shoot_plan_list... A unique eight-character task prefix or orderReference also works'). It implies the when-to-use case (dry-run before applying) but does not explicitly say to prefer it over shoot_plan_revise, so 4 rather than 5.

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