Plan Platform Delivery Matrix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it explicitly reinforces local-only behavior and itemizes the computations the planner performs, giving the agent a concrete picture of scope and side-effect freedom.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the most important constraint (local-only, no Premiere changes) is stated last but compactly. It is dense with enumerated lists, which slightly reduces scannability but wastes nothing.

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 not be described, and the description covers the tool's scope, inputs and non-mutating nature adequately for a 4-parameter planner. It could be stronger by noting how the plan relates to downstream apply/export tools, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 source fields, target enum, strategy enum and preset hint are all documented in the schema. The description gestures at these inputs (sequence settings, reframe scale math, fit checks) but adds no syntactic or default detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so 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?

The description states a specific verb (Plan), a specific resource (multi-ratio delivery of one source sequence), and enumerates the exact platforms plus the artifacts produced (reframe scale math, duration/file-size fit, caption safe zones, ordered apply routes). This clearly separates it from siblings like validate_platform_publish_package or verify_delivery_conformance, which are validation rather than planning.

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?

'Local-only; never changes Premiere' tells the agent this is a non-mutating planning step, which is the key routing signal versus mutating tools (export_sequence, apply_edit_plan). It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative or state the precondition that a plan precedes an apply/export step, so it stops short of 5.

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