Plan a module content package

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: it discloses the exact three-part structure (segments 1-6/60s, 7-15/90s, 16-18/30s), the dynamic deck-sizing rule (never more than 30 seconds per slide), the return composition (package_id, plan, content map), per-segment/slide attribution details, and the no-follow-up behavior ('Ask the user nothing further').

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 description is longer than average (~140 words) but information-dense: each sentence conveys a distinct structural rule, input mode, or output detail that the agent needs. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly verbose but no wasted sentences.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return values (package_id, plan, content map) and the granular per-segment metadata. It covers the complex structure, inputs, and behavior well. Minor gaps remain: failure modes, whether an existing package is overwritten, and handling of ambiguous topic resolution are not addressed.

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 adds genuine cross-parameter meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that module_number and topic are alternatives ('Accepts a module number, or a topic to resolve to the module that holds it') and confirms that words_per_minute drives the 'settled' durations and counts.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Plans the full 12 minutes of content for one Participant Handbook module.' It then details the exact three-part video structure and deck-sizing rules, making the tool's scope unmistakable and distinct from siblings like plan_video_transcript or get_module_content_spec.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use it (planning a full module content package) and explains input modes ('Accepts a module number, or a topic to resolve to the module that holds it'), but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. Given the sibling list contains the narrower plan_video_transcript, explicit differentiation would have strengthened this.

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