Plan a launch film

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it discloses that the tool writes a film.json artifact and stops short of rendering, and it names the version/runtime ('launch-film 0.2.0, on this machine'), which signals local execution.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the next-step instruction. The trailing parenthetical version/environment note is marginally useful context rather than filler, though it slightly dilutes the ending.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the write-then-render lifecycle plus the guide pointer for editing the artifact. The only gap relative to tool complexity is not clarifying the relationship to make_launch_film.

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 each of the 10 parameters carries its own description (defaults, enums, bounds, wait_seconds rationale), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond pointing at film.json and launch_film_guide; 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?

Uses specific verbs and resources: 'Reads a product's brand and page and writes film.json, the plan of a launch film, without rendering it.' The explicit 'without rendering it' cleanly separates it from render_launch_film and make_launch_film, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a concrete workflow: run this, edit film.json (consult launch_film_guide for scene types and fields), then call render_launch_film. It does not, however, say when to prefer this two-step path over the sibling make_launch_film, which is the main remaining routing ambiguity.

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