resolve_production_preflight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's claim as 'read-only' is consistent and adds value beyond annotations by specifying the scope (timeline, media, settings, render choice, disk capacity). No contradiction.

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 12-word sentence that front-loads the key behavior ('Read-only studio preflight') and lists checked areas efficiently. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 with 9 parameters, the description is brief and does not explain parameter usage or return structure. However, an output schema exists which likely covers return values. The description adequately conveys the tool's purpose but lacks depth for the parameter count.

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%, so the description should compensate. However, it only mentions general categories ('timeline, media, settings, render choice, disk capacity') without detailing any of the 9 parameters. Parameter names like output_dir, timeline_id, and require_audio require explanation that the description fails to provide.

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 it is a 'read-only studio preflight' for the specific areas of timeline, media, settings, render choice, and disk capacity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_get_state (state retrieval) or resolve_verify_media (media verification) by emphasizing a comprehensive check before production.

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 implies use for production preflight checks, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolve_get_state or resolve_execute_destructive_action. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-to-use/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.