get_edit_plan_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is non-destructive (generates plan, does not execute), returns a plan for human review, and requires subsequent execution via smart_clip. This gives sufficient behavioral clarity for a planning tool.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, non-execution nature, and the subsequent execution step. Every clause is necessary and contributes to understanding. No wasted words.

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?

With 5 parameters all described in the schema and an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately explains the tool's role in the workflow. It could mention the output format or that the plan is suitable for input to smart_clip, but given the output schema existence, this is acceptable.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool generates an editing plan without executing it, returning the plan for human review. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'smart_clip' by indicating that after approval, smart_clip should be called for execution. Purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies a workflow: use this tool to create a plan, then after human approval, use smart_clip to execute. This provides clear context for when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for direct execution or other analysis tasks.

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