Plan Short Export Folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the operation is local-only, never writes files, and never changes Premiere, plus that it reminds the caller to create missing folders. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 filler. The main action is front-loaded, the reminder behavior is stated, and the critical safety boundary is placed at the end without redundancy.

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 annotations, complete input schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what this planning tool does and how it should be invoked. The only mild ambiguity is what makes a Shorts root 'approved', but that is a domain detail rather than a missing invocation requirement.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains export_root, series_name, title, extension, and brand. The description mostly restates the role of series_name and export_root with 'series-named export folder' and 'approved Shorts root', adding little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it plans a series-named export folder inside a Shorts root. It also clarifies the tool's boundary by stating it does not write files or change Premiere, which separates it from creation or editing tools. This clearly distinguishes it from other planning tools in the sibling list.

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: use when planning export folder organization, and the reminder to create the folder when missing implies the caller is expected to handle actual creation. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly or state a when-not condition, but the planning-only scope is evident.

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