Plan Silence Review Markers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it clips candidates to the source in/out span, redacts the source path, and explicitly promises no markers, no clip cuts, and no Premiere changes. This goes well beyond the structured 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?

Two dense sentences provide purpose, scope, behavioral guarantees, and parameter-relevant context with no wasted words. The non-mutating nature is front-loaded, making the tool's key trait immediately visible.

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, a complete input schema, and an output schema, the description covers the remaining critical context: it is a bounded review plan, it uses FFmpeg-detected silences, it maps to one 1x timeline placement, and it has no side effects. Nothing essential for correct selection and 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 the input schema already fully documents all seven parameters. The description adds some semantic context by mentioning the source in/out span and the 1x placement, which helps relate parameters like source_in_seconds and timeline_start_seconds, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 ('Create') and resource ('bounded, non-mutating review plan') and precisely defines what the plan does: mapping FFmpeg-detected silences onto one timeline placement. It also clarifies scope ('one known 1x timeline placement') and explicitly differentiates itself from mutation tools by stating it never adds markers or changes Premiere.

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 clearly positions this as a planning-only, non-mutating operation, which tells an agent when to use it instead of mutating tools like add_marker or edit-application tools. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the exclusion of side effects provides strong contextual guidance.

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