Plan Word Mute Ranges

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 context: 'Local-only; never changes Premiere' and that output is 'redacted, frame-snapped... ready-to-apply.' This goes beyond the annotations by describing what the tool computes and that it has no Premiere side effects.

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 first sentence states the core action and target, and the second covers output behavior and the critical safety caveat. Every clause earns its place, and the most important scoping information appears first.

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, full input schema, and presence of an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly: it is a planning-only operation, returns ready-to-apply ranges/keyframes/tones, and never mutates Premiere. The main prerequisite, that word_timeline must come from get_clip_transcript_uxp, is already documented in the schema.

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 of 3 applies. The description references 'words/phrases,' 'word timeline,' 'frame-snapped,' and 'bleep,' but these mostly mirror what the schema already documents for words, word_timeline, frame_rate, and mode. It adds little semantic value beyond the structured parameter descriptions.

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 mute or bleep ranges for listed words/phrases in a word timeline.' It clearly distinguishes itself from apply-style sibling tools by saying it 'Returns... ready-to-apply audio keyframes' and 'never changes Premiere,' and from other planning tools by targeting word/phrase mute ranges rather than silence or filler-word review.

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 conveys when to use it: during the planning phase, to produce mute/bleep ranges without modifying Premiere. Phrases like 'ready-to-apply audio keyframes' and 'Local-only; never changes Premiere' indicate this is a safe compute-only precursor to a later application step. It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as add_audio_keyframes or plan_filler_word_removal, so it stops short of a full exclusion-based usage guide.

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