Apply Spot Workflow Plan

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

Annotations establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: required authorities, the restriction to empty explicitly named tracks, and the warning that host readback is not playback or render verification. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 dense sentences cover purpose, constraints, and a critical verification caveat, with no filler. The most important action is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaningful operational information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers the key preconditions: previewed exact plan, confirmation token, authority requirements, track targeting, and verification limitations. The output schema handles return-value expectations, and the main gap is a lack of explicit tie-back to which sibling preview tools apply in which cases.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters. The description reinforces that the plan must be "exact" and "previewed," but this largely echoes the schema's own wording rather than adding new semantic detail.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb-resource pairing: "Apply one exact previewed motion-demo, product-spot, or brand-spot plan." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_edit_plan and the various preview_*_spot tools by naming the exact plan types it consumes.

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 conveys when to use the tool by requiring an "exact previewed" plan and confirmation token, which implies the preview_*_spot workflow must run first. It also gives practical constraints: edit authority, filesystem authority for MOGRT, and empty named tracks. It stops short of explicitly spelling out alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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