Create Context Edit Plan

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond those fields: it is evidence-backed, returns ranked source/time candidates, and includes stale-state guards that require review before mutation.

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?

Two sentences are used with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the preview-before-mutation constraint is included immediately afterward.

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?

With rich annotations, complete parameter descriptions, and an output schema, the description only needs to orient the agent. It adequately explains the non-mutating planning role, the review requirement, and the preview step, though it could more explicitly distinguish this tool from create_editorial_plan.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter syntax, defaults, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score appropriate.

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 and resource: create a non-mutating edit-plan scaffold from indexed Premiere context. It also distinguishes this planning step from the later mutation path by naming preview_edit_plan, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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?

It says the returned candidates must be reviewed and that preview_edit_plan must be used before any mutation, which gives clear sequencing guidance. It does not explicitly name when to use create_editorial_plan or other planning siblings instead, so it falls short of exhaustive when/when-not guidance.

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