Plan Short Subscribe Cta

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely pre-covered. 'Local-only; never changes Premiere' usefully reinforces that this is a planning step with no side effects, but it adds little behavioral detail beyond the annotations and doesn't address return shape or whether plans can be reapplied.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and placement, with the non-destructive constraint as a trailing qualifier. No filler, every clause carries information.

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 and full schema description coverage, the description needn't explain return values; it correctly covers the what, the default placement, and the local-only constraint. It stops just short of routing guidance among the large plan_* family, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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% across all 8 parameters, including enums for brand and platform and bounded ranges, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only echoes the default placement (two-thirds) and safety framing, adding no parameter detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Plan a brief subscribe overlay ... in a platform-safe lower-third') and pins the timing ('about two-thirds through a Short, after an optional hook'), which is enough to distinguish it from the many other plan_* siblings. An agent can tell this plans a CTA placement rather than mutating the timeline.

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?

Implies usage via 'after an optional hook' and 'platform-safe lower-third', which tells the agent the intended editorial context, but it never states when to prefer this over siblings like add_text_overlay or plan_reaction_captions, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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