Plan Silence Review Markers

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real context beyond them: candidates are clipped to the supplied source in/out span, the source path is redacted, and the plan is bounded. These are non-obvious behavioral traits (privacy handling, scoping) that an agent would not learn from the annotations alone.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the non-mutation guarantees are stated second where they belong. Every phrase 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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and all seven parameters are documented in the schema. The safety profile and scoping behavior are covered, leaving only the explicit when-to-use guidance as a gap.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining that source_in/out are used to clip candidates and that the result is tied to a single 1x timeline placement, which clarifies the effect of those parameters beyond their schema wording.

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 ('Create a bounded, non-mutating review plan') plus the precise resource and operation: mapping FFmpeg-detected silences onto a known 1x timeline placement. An agent can distinguish this from detection siblings (detect_silence) and marker-writing siblings (add_markers_batch) without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'never adds markers, cuts clips, or changes Premiere' implicitly routes the agent away from the mutation siblings and toward a planning step, which is useful implied guidance. However, no alternative is named explicitly and there is no stated precondition or 'use this instead of X when Y' instruction, so the agent must infer when to prefer this over detect_silence, plan_pause_tightening, or add_markers_batch.

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