Preview Workflow Recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description usefully reinforces this by stating it does not invoke any route or change Premiere, though it does not add deeper operational details like auth or persistence behavior.

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 and immediately followed by the key non-effect guarantee. No wasted wording.

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 a rich output schema, full input schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers purpose and side-effect boundaries; return values are covered by the output schema.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 applies when schema carries the burden.

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: validate and expand one declarative workflow recipe into guarded MCP routes. It also clarifies what it does not do, which distinguishes it from apply/invoke-style siblings, even without naming a specific alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by 'preview' and the no-side-effect note, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus search_workflow_recipes or apply_edit_plan. It provides minimum viable context, not routing guidance.

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