Plan Cross App Workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: the output is non-executing, issues no approval tokens, and makes no host-readiness claims — key boundaries for a planning tool in a pipeline of apply/preview siblings.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the first states the action and return shape, the second states the hard limits. No filler, no restatement of the tool title.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, yet the description still usefully summarizes them (ordered dependencies, separate approvals, required evidence, manual render stops). Combined with the explicit non-execution boundaries, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

A single required enum parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input. The description's phrase 'MOGRT or rendered-file handoff' loosely mirrors the two enum values but adds no format or selection guidance. Baseline 3 for a fully documented single parameter.

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 (plan) and a precisely scoped resource (After Effects MOGRT or rendered-file handoff to Premiere), and the schema enumerates the two supported handoffs. An agent can distinguish it from sibling apply/preview handoff tools without opening any 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?

Explicitly bounds usage: 'Local-only planning; never executes steps, issues approval tokens, or claims host readiness,' which tells the agent clearly when not to rely on it for execution. It notes it uses existing tools but never names a specific alternative like apply_mogrt_premiere_handoff, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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