Preview Mogrt Premiere Handoff

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 still adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: that the operation never contacts Premiere and never mutates a sequence, which is exactly the distinction an agent needs when choosing between preview and apply.

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 sentences, zero filler. The positive action is front-loaded and the non-mutation guarantee is placed second, which is the right ordering for an agent scanning for safety constraints.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent preview tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything needed to select and invoke it correctly, including the non-contact guarantee. It could be marginally stronger by naming the apply counterpart, but nothing essential 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% and an output schema exists, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including the 'MOGRT Verify - ' naming rule and the empty-track index. The description echoes the disposable-sequence and empty-track intent but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Preview) plus the exact resource and target (a contained MOGRT import into a named disposable Premiere verification sequence and empty video track). The word 'preview' plus the 'does not contact Premiere' clause cleanly separates it from the sibling apply_mogrt_premiere_handoff.

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?

Clearly signals when this is the right choice: a dry-run verification that neither contacts Premiere nor alters a sequence, implying the apply tool is used after verification passes. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly, so it falls just short of 5.

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