Plan Filler Word Removal

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it clarifies that the tool only plans and is 'local-only; never changes Premiere', and that output is 'frame-snapped removal and keep ranges plus apply routes' — concrete behavioral context beyond the hints.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; purpose, output shape, and safety each get one clause. Nothing is padded, though the output/safety sentences could be slightly tighter.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested transcript object and a declared output schema, the description covers purpose, output nature (ranges + apply routes), and the non-mutating guarantee. The main gap is the absence of sibling-oriented guidance on when to choose this planner over related planners, but the core calling context is complete.

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%, including defaults, ranges, and the filler-word matching rules, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the notion of frame-snapping and a few sample fillers that the schema already documents; 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Plan word-level filler removal' with parenthetical examples (um, uh, you know...), scoped to a 'revision-bound word timeline'. An agent immediately knows what is produced. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like plan_word_mute_ranges or plan_pause_tightening, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and never names the alternative tools an agent should weigh it against (e.g. plan_word_mute_ranges for muting vs this for cutting). Usage must be inferred from the name and input requirements.

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