ae_create_editorial_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it clearly discloses that the tool is non-mutating ('before any AE mutation') and returns a reviewable plan. It does not cover edge cases such as missing transcript input, but the key safety trait is visible.

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?

The description is one tight, front-loaded sentence that covers purpose, input, outputs, and safety in under 30 words. Every clause adds useful decision information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema metadata.

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?

The description conveys the core workflow and non-mutation guarantee well, but it leaves input selection and output shape underspecified. Since there is no output schema, the exact contents of the 'reviewable plan' are only partially described, and the optional transcript/transcript_path ambiguity remains unresolved.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the three parameters. It fails to clarify whether transcript and transcript_path are alternatives, what precedence applies, or how mode values (clean, retention, story) affect the resulting plan.

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: 'Create an explainable YouTube edit plan from a timed transcript.' It then lists the concrete outputs—natural cut points, a hook, chapters, and visuals—which clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation and audit tools.

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 description gives clear workflow context: use this tool when you have a timed transcript and want a reviewable plan before making any AE changes. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as ae_transcript_to_cuts or ae_audit_editorial_plan, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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