Preview Mogrt Recipe

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds genuinely valuable behavioral context beyond them: it validates exactly one existing workspace output directory, never contacts Adobe, and writes no files. For a 'preview' tool an agent could wrongly assume an Adobe round-trip or a written preview artifact; the description explicitly disclaims both. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads action and scope; the second disclaims the two most likely behavioral misassumptions. 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?

Given the rich 100%-covered schema, an output schema, and safety-carrying annotations, the description needs only to capture behavioral scope and boundaries — which it does. The only minor gap is not explicitly differentiating among the large family of preview siblings (preview_mogrt_batch, preview_mogrt_library_publish, preview_mogrt_premiere_handoff), but openWorldHint=false and the scope terms provide adequate context.

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 — the schema fully documents all 13 parameters. The description adds marginal extra meaning by tying behavior to workspace/output-directory parameters ('validates one existing workspace output directory'), but it does not add per-parameter detail, which the schema already provides.

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 ('Preview'), a resource ('bounded After Effects MOGRT recipe'), and scope ('supported title, callout, quote, and social template library'). The qualifier 'bounded' and the disclaimer 'does not contact Adobe or write any files' implicitly separate it from sibling preview tools like preview_after_effects_render or preview_mogrt_library_publish, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 constraints ('validates one existing workspace output directory', 'does not contact Adobe or write any files') imply when this tool is appropriate — a local, sandboxed, single-workspace preview — but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., preview_mogrt_batch, preview_mogrt_premiere_handoff) is given. The usage context is inferable, not stated.

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