video_audiogram_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether it writes files, produces a render, requires audio decoding, or has side effects. The parenthetical '(TE.4)' conveys no usable behavior.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise; the single fragment fails to front-load purpose. Brevity here reflects missing content, not efficiency.

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 tool producing a 'plan' with 4 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It leaves the agent unable to know inputs, outputs, or side effects.

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% for 4 parameters. The description references 'chapter mark' but doesn't explain the chapter_marks array format, units (seconds?), or what width/height control. It adds no meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 'Audiogram + chapter mark plan (TE.4)' is a fragment restating the tool name plus an unexplained code. It doesn't state a clear verb or what the output is beyond the title, and the reference 'TE.4' is opaque. An agent cannot confidently distinguish this from sibling planning tools like video_punch_zoom_plan or video_timeline_edit_plan from the description alone.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool vs alternatives is given. With dozens of sibling '*_plan' tools, the agent has no guidance on selecting this one.

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