Plan Cross App Workflow

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial transparency: it enumerates what the tool returns and explicitly clarifies what it does not do (execution, approval tokens, host readiness claims). This goes well beyond the annotations and prevents an agent from mistaking planning for execution.

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 carry the full burden: the first states purpose and outputs, the second states constraints and exclusions. Every phrase adds value, and the most important scoping information ('Local-only planning; never executes') is positioned at the end as a clear guardrail.

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 a single enum parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete for its complexity. It explains what the tool returns, what it does not do, and its planning-only scope. Nothing critical is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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%, and the single 'workflow' parameter is already described with an enum of the two supported handoff types. The description echoes these two variants at a high level but adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Plan') with a clear resource ('After Effects MOGRT or rendered-file handoff to Premiere'). It also states concrete outputs (ordered dependencies, separate approvals, required evidence, manual render stops) and explicitly distinguishes itself from execution tools by saying it 'never executes steps, issues approval tokens, or claims host readiness.'

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 clearly establishes this as a local-only planning tool and explicitly says it never executes steps or issues approval tokens. This gives an agent strong context for when to use it, though it does not name specific alternative tools such as apply_after_effects_render_handoff or preview_mogrt_premiere_handoff.

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