create_editorial_plan

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

Although annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, the description adds valuable behavioral context that annotations do not cover: it never calls an LLM, never uploads media, and never changes Premiere. It also emphasizes that the plan is 'local' and evidence-backed. This goes beyond the structured annotations and gives the agent a concrete safety model.

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?

The description is exactly two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the main action and input source; the second supplies the key behavioral boundaries. Every clause adds information, and nothing in the description is redundant with the supplied annotations.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description states the output kind ('editorial workflow plan'), the evidence source, and the important side-effect absence. The schema covers all parameter semantics, so nothing about invocation is hidden. The only small gap is that the description does not explicitly define the returned plan structure or how the plan is presented, but this is not fatal given the schema and context signals.

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%, so the schema already provides clear meaning for every parameter, including workflow-specific guidance for platform_targets and organization_rules. The description itself does not add parameter-level semantics beyond saying the plan is built from captured context. Given the high schema coverage, the minimum-viable baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('create'), a concrete resource ('editorial workflow plan'), and the input source ('captured project context'), so the core action is unmistakable. The explicit negatives ('never calls an LLM, uploads media, or changes Premiere') help differentiate it from sibling planning and editing tools. Overall, an agent can confidently determine what this tool does 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?

The description implies that the tool operates on previously captured project context, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives such as preview_editorial_plan or create_context_edit_plan. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions beyond the stated 'from captured project context.' The agent is left to infer the decision boundary.

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