video_restoration_plan

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

No annotations exist, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'evidence-gated' but does not explain side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. The nature of 'plan or evaluate' suggests no destruction, but this is not stated.

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 very short (one sentence, 9 words), which is concise but lacks structure. It is front-loaded but insufficiently informative for a planning tool.

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?

Given the complexity of planning tools and the flexible input, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an 'evidence-gated' plan is, what the output (output schema exists) contains, or how to structure the request. Sibling tools show many similar plans, but no differentiation.

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?

The single parameter 'request' is a flexible object with no description in schema or description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds zero meaning about the parameter's structure or expected content.

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 ('plan or evaluate') and resource ('local restorative work'), but the phrase 'evidence-gated' is unclear and fails to distinguish from sibling tools like video_rescue_plan or video_repurpose_plan.

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. The description implies usage for planning restorative work but does not mention exclusions or provide context for when to choose this over other plan tools.

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