shoot_day_plan

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that computation is local, rule-based, non-AI, German-labelled, free of charge, that results are retained 30 days, that nothing is written to a calendar (the .ics is text to import manually), and that only non-personal fields may be used. That is exactly the kind of operational and privacy context annotations cannot express. Minor tension: openWorldHint=true while the description stresses built-in rules and local data, but nothing unsafe or contradictory is asserted.

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 one dense but well-ordered paragraph: purpose first, then the return shape, then operational caveats. A little redundancy creeps in ('LOCAL ... no payment' overlaps with 'NOTE: Rule-based ... no AI model'), and the run-on structure forces re-reading. Still, nearly every clause carries information.

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 an 8-parameter tool with a nested array input and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the enumeration of return keys (language, rules, summary, days, warnings, coverage), the planning rules and their default limits, and the privacy/retention/manual-import constraints. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 only 25% across 8 parameters, so the description has to compensate and largely does: it pins the 12-item cap, place-based grouping, max_shoots_per_day (3), max_day_minutes (8 h), breaks and lunch, and the first_date→calendar-file behaviour, plus language affecting labels and output. start_time and media_type still get no meaning from the description, so it is not fully compensating.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it turns up to 12 planned videos into shoot days, bundled by place, split evenly across max 3 shoots/8h, and produces a timed schedule, equipment list, checklist and optional .ics. An agent immediately knows what it gets. It never names the adjacent tools it is not (video_project_plan, content_month_plan), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

"Up to 12 planned videos" and the returned artifacts imply when this applies, and the caution about not sending personal data is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use, and no reference to the neighbouring planning tools (video_recipes, video_project_plan, content_month_plan) that an agent must choose between. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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