framerudiments_plan

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

Annotations already declare write, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real value beyond them: the operation returns a retained background job rather than completing synchronously, it emits a file, and it carries a base write effect plus potentially conditional inference/download effects that must be inspected via danceflow_component. It does not disclose overwrite behavior when the ledger file already exists, nor what happens if validation fails.

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?

Three short sentences, each front-loaded with the operative fact: what it does, what it returns, and which flags apply. No filler. The telegraphic register ('Base effect flags: write.') is efficient but borders on cryptic for an agent unfamiliar with the effect-flag vocabulary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the async/poll behavior is correctly flagged. However, for a write tool with a nested permissions object and required project/output paths, the description omits how 'pinning' is established, whether the output file is created or overwritten, and how permission acknowledgement interacts with the conditional inference/download effects it mentions.

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 50%: the permissions object is documented, but project and output carry only regex/length constraints with no prose. The description partially compensates by implying output is the destination ledger file and that project refers to pinned inputs, but it never states expected format (name vs. path) or whether output may overwrite an existing file. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the mixed coverage.

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 pairs specific verbs with a specific resource: validate pinned project inputs and write a frame ledger JSON file. That distinguishes it from framerudiments_render and framerudiments_preflight at a glance. It stops short of 5 because 'frame ledger' and 'pinned project inputs' are project-specific jargon not elaborated, and the relationship to the closest sibling (fram erudiments_preflight) is never stated.

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?

It tells the agent what to do after invoking (poll danceflow_job_status) and where to look for conditional effects (danceflow_component), which is genuinely useful sequencing guidance. But it offers no when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to preflight or render, and no statement of prerequisites beyond the vague 'pinned' qualifier.

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