prismmoves_preset_analyse

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

Annotations already declare destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, but the description adds genuinely new facts: the operation is asynchronous and returns a retained job handle, that write is the base effect flag, and that inference/download effects are conditional and gated by what danceflow_component reports. That async-and-gated model is exactly what an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool, though it does not say what gets overwritten or what permissions must be acknowledged.

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 with zero filler, and the crucial lifecycle fact (returns a job; poll danceflow_job_status) is placed early. Density is high, though a couple of compressed phrases edge toward opaque shorthand.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the effect-gating model and async pattern that are the main hazards. Against a tool with many nested, undocumented parameters and several near-neighbor preset tools, it still leaves the agent guessing about required inputs and sibling selection.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage and a deeply nested arguments object (captures, output, budget, models, semantic_edge, allow_download, keyword_models, device, paths), the description supplies no parameter meaning at all — it never explains that captures/output are required inputs or what budget bounds. The only faint signal is 'conditional inference/download effects', which gestures at allow_download and the permissions object without clarifying either.

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 names a verb and resource ('Describe captured presets') plus the analytical basis ('temporal evidence and a bounded semantic budget'), so the general purpose is inferable. However, 'temporal evidence' and 'bounded semantic budget' are internal jargon, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings prismmoves_preset_reindex or prismmoves_preset_legacy, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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 gives useful lifecycle guidance — the call returns a retained background job and the agent must poll danceflow_job_status — and directs the agent to danceflow_component to check conditional inference/download effects. It gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the other preset tools, so selection among siblings is left to inference.

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