Apply Spot Workflow Plan

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

Annotations only carry the safety flags (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false); the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the authority requirements, the constraint that only empty explicitly named tracks are touched, and the caveat that host readback is not playback or render verification. That last point is a non-obvious limitation an agent would otherwise not know.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by prerequisites and constraints. Nothing is redundant, though the final readback caveat is phrased cryptically enough that it costs a little readability.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills in authority, targeting, and verification caveats, leaving only the explicit naming of the required preview_*_spot source tools as a gap.

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 100% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents both. The phrase 'one exact previewed ... plan' mildly reinforces the provenance requirement in the schema, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Apply') and resource ('one exact previewed motion-demo, product-spot, or brand-spot plan'), and the type list cleanly separates it from the generic apply_edit_plan and apply_mogrt_premiere_handoff siblings. An agent can tell which preview output this consumes without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit preconditions are given (edit authority, filesystem authority for MOGRT, targets only empty explicitly named tracks) plus the implicit requirement that the plan be 'exact' and previously previewed. It stops short of naming the preview_*_spot tools as the required source, so selection guidance is clear but not fully routed.

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