rastermoves_plan_all_models

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the call returns a retained background job rather than a synchronous payload, and the 'Base effect flags: write' line reconciles why readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true on what is nominally a print/plan operation. It also tells the agent that conditional inference/download effects exist and must be checked. Not a contradiction – it is an explanation of the annotation profile.

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-loaded with purpose first, then async behavior, then effect flags, then follow-up tools. Dense and telegraphic but every sentence carries information; the 'Base effect flags: write' fragment is terse to the point of being cryptic.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and the async job pattern plus effect flags are well disclosed. However, for a two-parameter tool whose whole job is planning around input/output paths, the meaning and constraints of those arguments are left entirely unaddressed.

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 only 50%, and the undocumented half is the important part: input, output and cache_dir carry no descriptions in the schema, and the description says nothing about what these paths mean or how they shape the plan. Only the permissions object is self-documented, so the description fails to compensate for the gap.

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 ('Print the canonical all-model output plan') and immediately scopes it as a dry-run that does not download or run models. That negative scope separates it from siblings like rastermoves_download, rastermoves_upscale and rastermoves_plan_refinement, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Makes the use case clear (generate the plan before committing to model effects) and routes the agent forward: 'poll danceflow_job_status' and 'Inspect danceflow_component for conditional inference/download effects.' Lacks an explicit contrast against rastermoves_plan_refinement, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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