Preview Watched Media Import

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds behavioral specifics beyond them: a 'fresh contained scan', path-redacted output, and confirmation that Premiere is never mutated. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with the core comparison/proposal behavior and closing with a no-side-effect guarantee. Every phrase earns its place and there is zero fluff.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail the return shape. Combined with the parameter schema and annotations, it covers what the tool does, its side-effect profile, and its place in a watch workflow. No essential gap remains for calling it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and all three parameters (watch_id, include_paths, known_media_path_hashes) have descriptive schema text. The tool description does not elaborate on parameter details, but the schema already carries that semantic weight, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise action ('Compare... and return...'), the resource (active watch baseline vs fresh contained scan), and an explicit exclusion ('never imports or changes Premiere'). This clearly separates it from import/mutation siblings even without naming them.

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 context is clear: this is a preview/proposal step tied to a watch baseline, and 'It never imports or changes Premiere' tells the agent not to use it when an actual import/change is desired. It does not name a fallback sibling, so the guidance is strong but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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