Plan Client Notes Checklist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful traits beyond that: it is 'local-only and deterministic' and 'never changes Premiere', confirming no side effects on the project. It omits any note on failure modes for unparseable notes, keeping it at 4.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a dense but information-bearing enumeration of classifications and the output contract. Every element maps to real behavior with no filler, though the long single sentence is heavy to parse.

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; the description still names the produced artifact (add_markers_batch payload) to link it to the sibling that applies it. Combined with the classification taxonomy, priority model, and side-effect guarantees, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description nevertheless adds meaning above the schema by hinting at behaviors tied to parameters: timecode and range extraction (timecode_style/frame_rate), priority inference (marker_color_mode priority), and separating approvals (include_approvals_as_markers). It never names the parameters directly, so it stays below 5.

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 names a precise verb and resource transformation ('turn pasted client or reviewer feedback into a prioritized checklist') and enumerates the sub-operations (timecode extraction, classification, priority inference, approvals/questions separation, payload emission). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling planning tools like plan_chapter_markers or plan_beat_montage.

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 establishes the input context ('pasted client or reviewer feedback') and the downstream handoff ('emits an add_markers_batch payload'), which implies when to reach for it and what consumes its output. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top score.

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