Inspect Film Editorial Workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description extends these with concrete operational boundaries: local-only inspection, no host edits, no exports, no automatic creative decisions, and notably 'no verified host claims' — clarifying the output carries no host-verification authority. This adds real behavioral context beyond the structured hints, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, a bounded output enumeration in the second, and a terse boundary statement in the third. Every sentence earns its place for a 16-parameter tool, though the middle sentence's seven-item list of outputs is dense and could be structured more readably.

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 16 deeply nested parameters, 100% schema coverage, a rich annotation set (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what is validated, what artifacts are produced, and the operational safety boundaries. The residual gap is missing selection guidance against the many inspection/audit siblings, which is more a usage-guideline shortfall than a completeness failure.

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 rich per-parameter semantics (e.g., 'Stale notes remain unresolved; frames are never guessed onto a new cut,' 'Preferences never remove unselected coverage'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds high-level workflow framing ('independent picture/audio preferences,' 'screening-note exceptions,' 'department turnover manifest') that maps parameter groups to their role in the tool, but it does not add operational detail the schema already lacks.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Validate a revision-bound film editorial manifest against captured source and timeline identities.' The second sentence enumerates concrete artifacts it builds (coverage review groups, independent picture/audio preferences, screening-note exceptions, story dependencies, VFX state, change impact, department turnover manifest), which clearly distinguishes it from surface-similar siblings like inspect_edit_readiness or audit_timeline_health. An agent can tell 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 'Local inspection only' clause implies inspection context and the negative list ('no host edits, exports, automatic creative decisions or verified host claims') sets a clear boundary of what the tool will not do. However, it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_edit_readiness, inspect_sequence_review_report, or audit_timeline_health, and names no sibling or precondition. The agent must infer selection criteria from the name and output enumeration.

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