video_repurpose_plan

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

Without annotations, the description bears full burden. It implies non-destructive behavior through 'dry-run' but does not explicitly state that no files are modified, nor does it disclose output format or side effects. Minimal behavioral detail beyond the name.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action. However, given the lack of parameter and guidance details, it sacrifices completeness for brevity slightly.

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?

Despite having no annotations and three parameters with zero description coverage, the description only offers a high-level purpose. It fails to explain what a 'manifest' is, how to use output, or connect to sibling tools. An output schema exists but is not detailed, leaving the description incomplete for practical use.

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 provides no additional meaning for the three parameters ('input_path', 'output_dir', 'platforms'). The phrase 'platform-ready assets' hints at platforms but does not clarify input or output expectations.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('dry-run local repurposing manifest for platform-ready assets'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'video_repurpose' by emphasizing the planning and dry-run aspect.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'video_repurpose'. It does not mention prerequisites or context for the planning step, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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