Plan a safe multi-property retime

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

Annotations give readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by explicitly stating it never contacts AE and never applies edits—useful non-contradictory confirmation. It also discloses the contract: validates whole-frame timing and returns typed operations plus a readback plan. It stops short of describing failure behavior on invalid input.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The core identity (offline recipe) is front-loaded, followed by the return contract and the safety boundary.

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 no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return ('typed operations plus a readback plan') and coverage of the nested spec is complete via the schema. Minor gaps remain around what an invalid plan response looks like.

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% and the single nested 'spec' object is heavily documented in-schema (fresh live readback, whole comp frames, 1–16 tracks). The description adds only light framing ('whole-frame timing', 'one AE batch'), so baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb+resource ('Offline recipe for retiming several inspected property tracks in one AE batch') and distinguishes itself from execution siblings by asserting it 'never contacts After Effects or applies edits.' An agent can immediately tell this apart from ae_do or ae_motion_plan.

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?

Clearly frames the context: batch retiming of already-inspected tracks, produced as an offline plan before execution. It does not name a specific alternative tool (e.g., ae_do for applying the plan), so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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