Plan Pause Tightening

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds value beyond that: it says the tool is local-only, never mutates Premiere, and returns removal ranges, keep ranges, savings and apply routes, giving the agent a sense of what the plan output contains.

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 sentences with no padding; the core action is front-loaded and the return/safety notes follow in order of importance. Every clause earns its place.

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 rich annotations and an output schema present, the description need not explain return shapes in depth. It covers the mutation scope, the local-only guarantee and the planning output, leaving only the sibling routing question open.

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 all six parameters are already documented with defaults, bounds and constraints (e.g. target must not exceed max_pause_seconds). The description references max_pause_seconds and the target but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) plus a precise resource (shortening of inter-word pauses longer than max_pause_seconds down to a target), and clarifies it is not deletion. This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like plan_filler_word_removal and plan_word_mute_ranges without needing to open their schemas.

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 the use case (planning pause tightening) but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as detect_silence, plan_silence_review_markers, or plan_filler_word_removal. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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