Prepare, apply, or inspect an AE workflow

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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description still adds value: apply edits only the copy (not the source project), the job is "guarded" and persisted, and no production render fires automatically. That materially reframes what the destructive flag means here.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the prepare action and ending with the safety note. Each sentence carries a distinct fact; little is wasted.

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 tool with no output schema and a complex oneOf request, the description covers all three actions, the copy-only constraint, and the no-render guarantee. What a job contains or returns is left implicit, but the agent has enough to choose and call correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents copyPath, jobId, and instance. The description names the two recipe kinds and the action flow but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

States specific verbs and resources: prepare a typed retime or text/logo variants recipe against a managed .aep copy, then apply or read status. The action split is clear from both description and schema. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling ae_workflow_plan, which is the only gap.

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?

"Apply only after reviewing the job, or read its status" plus the schema note "Use prepare first, then apply or status with its jobId" gives an explicit sequencing rule. It stops short of naming when to pick this over ae_workflow_plan or ae_edit, but the workflow ordering is genuinely actionable.

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