video_generative_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does add one genuinely useful trait: 'Eligibility never proves execution: this tree has no generation adapter,' which prevents an agent from mistaking this for an executing generator. It still omits whether the tool persists/writes a plan, whether it is read-only, and how the spend-cap is enforced.

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 and the caveat sentence is front-loaded after the header phrase, but the extreme terseness tips into under-specification rather than efficiency. The '(P4.1)' fragment consumes space without conveying meaning to an agent.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but this is a spend-cap governance tool with 5 params at 0% coverage and no annotations. Given its apparent complexity, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it correctly.

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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate but largely does not. 'Spend-cap' loosely maps to max_spend_usd/estimated_spend_usd, yet prompt, model, and provider are left entirely unexplained and their interaction with the cap is unclear.

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 is a noun phrase ('Generative policy and spend-cap planning metadata') with no verb stating what the tool actually does. It restates the name (video_generative_plan) plus a vague 'planning metadata' gloss, and the 'P4.1' tag is opaque. An agent cannot confidently tell whether this creates a plan, reads a plan, or evaluates spend eligibility.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives among the many planning/estimate siblings (video_estimate_operation, video_cost_ledger, video_composition_plan). The only directional note is the negative one that this tree has no generation adapter, which loosely hints it is not the tool for actual generation, but that is not a usage routing instruction.

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