Plan Short Export Folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Local-only; never writes files or changes Premiere' largely restates the structured safety profile. The one genuine addition is the promise to 'remind the caller to create it when missing', hinting the response reports folder absence, but no further behavior (validation of the root, error cases) is disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the safety clause. No padding, though the second sentence is close to a restatement of the readOnly annotations and earns less of its place than the first.

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 an output schema present, return-format explanation is unnecessary, and all five parameters are documented in the schema. The definition is adequate for a local planning tool, though it omits what qualifies as an 'approved' root and the folder-naming convention it will generate.

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% and each of the five parameters already carries its own description (including the brand enum constraint), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming-convention detail beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it names the artifact it plans (a series-named export folder) and its scope (an approved Shorts root). The 'plan' family of siblings (plan_beat_montage, plan_chapter_markers) makes the intent distinguishable, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast itself against those planners.

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?

'remind the caller to create it when missing' implies the tool is a pre-flight planning step whose output feeds a later folder creation, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative is given. Usage must be inferred from the verb 'plan'.

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