ae_audit_editorial_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'without mutating After Effects,' which is a key safety guarantee. It also discloses that the tool reports specific issue categories, though it does not describe the report's format or whether any other side effects exist.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and resource, then lists report categories and the no-mutation guarantee. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter audit tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it checks, and its safety profile. It does not detail the return structure, but 'Reports ... issues' is sufficient for an agent to understand the expected output. Minor gaps around output format keep it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter, 'plan', is already described as the output of ae_create_editorial_plan. The description's reference to 'YouTube editorial plan' adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter well.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('a pre-build quality audit on a YouTube editorial plan'), and enumerates the exact report categories: hook, pacing, coverage, chapter, and unsafe short-cut issues. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling audit tools like ae_audit_motion_coverage or ae_validate_motion_blueprint, which target different artifacts.

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 phrase 'pre-build quality audit' gives a clear temporal context: run this after creating an editorial plan and before building the video. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can infer the intended stage without ambiguity.

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