nvr_plan_channel_cleanup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: declares 'Read-only' and 'Nothing is written', describes the returned summary and unsafe_if blocking conditions (duplicate uuids, >8 real cameras, online ghost). It could go further on preconditions/assumptions but the behavioral profile is largely 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?

Front-loads the key constraint ('Read-only') and the plan structure, and every clause adds information about steps or return shape. It is somewhat dense with multiple clauses, but there is little waste.

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 an output schema existing, the description fully explains the plan's shape, per-step tool/argument/precondition structure, the summary, and the unsafe_if conditions. For a zero-param planner whose job is orchestration, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add about inputs; baseline 4 applies. The schema is trivially complete for an empty argument object.

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+resource: 'Produce an ordered, resumable cleanup plan' with concrete sub-steps (back up config, remove ghosts, re-read, move cameras). This clearly distinguishes it from the write siblings (nvr_remove_channel, nvr_move_channel) since it only plans rather than mutates.

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?

Explicitly frames the workflow: 'Nothing is written; hand each step to the matching write tool yourself,' which tells the agent this is a planning step preceding the write tools. It doesn't name the specific write tools or say when NOT to use it, but the read-only planning role is clear.

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