Plan Platform Delivery Matrix

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 meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying 'Local-only; never changes Premiere' and detailing what the plan covers: sequence settings, reframe scale math, duration and file-size fit, caption safe zones, and ordered apply routes. This goes beyond merely restating the read-only nature.

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 description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and key output areas, and the second states the critical non-mutating guarantee. Every phrase contributes to selection or invocation understanding.

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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely complete for a planning tool. It describes scope, outputs, and the local-only/no-Premiere-mutation guarantee. It does not explicitly explain the 'local spec table' term or contrast with related plan/apply siblings, but these are minor gaps rather than core omissions.

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 the schema already documents source, targets, strategy, and export_preset_hint. The description adds high-level context about multi-ratio delivery and planning outputs but does not materially clarify individual parameter semantics beyond the schema. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Plan multi-ratio delivery of one source sequence to TikTok, Reels, Shorts, YouTube, LinkedIn, X, and Facebook.' It further defines the tool's scope as a local planning operation producing a spec table, and the final sentence explicitly distinguishes it from mutating Premiere operations. This separates it clearly from apply/export siblings.

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 gives clear context that this is a non-destructive planning tool used before delivery, and the 'never changes Premiere' clause signals when not to use it if actual sequence mutation is needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the planning-only framing is enough to route an agent appropriately.

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