Preview Workflow Recipe

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds concrete context beyond them: that the tool expands a recipe into guarded MCP routes and specifically does not invoke routes or mutate Premiere. This clarifies what 'read-only' means in this tool's particular transformation workflow, which is useful behavioral detail beyond the bare annotation flags.

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 front-loads the primary purpose (validate and expand a recipe) and the second states the critical safety boundary (no invocation, no Premiere changes). Every clause 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?

The description conveys the core behavioral contract — validation into guarded MCP routes with no side effects — while the output schema covers return values and the schema covers parameters. Minor gaps remain: what 'guarded' entails, how validation failures surface, and explicit routing among the many preview/plan/apply siblings, but nothing blocks a correct call.

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 schema already documents all four parameters in detail (for example, provided_inputs notes 'values are intentionally not persisted in the recipe preview'). The description adds no parameter-level information, matching the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses specific verbs ('Validate and expand') with a specific resource ('one declarative workflow recipe') and a concrete output ('guarded MCP routes'). It distinguishes itself from apply/invoke siblings by explicitly stating 'It does not invoke any route or change Premiere,' making it separable from apply_edit_plan, apply_spot_workflow_plan, and similar execution tools.

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 implies this tool is for validating recipes before execution through the clause 'It does not invoke any route or change Premiere,' which signals a non-execution role. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g., an apply_* sibling) or states explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the routing decision partially to the agent's inference.

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