Rank Short Form Candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it explains the ranking criteria, states it is a local-only plan, explicitly says it is not a virality prediction, and confirms it never changes Premiere. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but the safety profile is well reinforced.

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 tightly written sentences that front-load the core action and follow with scope clarifications. The parenthetical heuristic list is dense but useful, and the second sentence removes ambiguity without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 an 11-parameter tool with nested objects and an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the operation, local-only nature, non-destructive behavior, and that it is not a virality prediction. Return values are left to the output schema, which is acceptable. It does not mention key prerequisites like attaching the transcript revision, but the schema covers that.

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 11 parameters with types, ranges, and defaults. The description mentions concepts like evidence peaks, keywords, duration fit, and speaker consistency but adds no syntax, format, or usage directives beyond what the schema provides. 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 specific verb ('Rank') and resource ('long-video transcript windows as short-form clip candidates'), and clarifies it uses local heuristics. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling planning tools like analyze_dialogue_edit_candidates or plan_beat_montage, so no sibling differentiation is provided.

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 gives context ('Local-only plan; not a virality prediction and never changes Premiere'), which implies when to use it but offers no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is left to inference rather than stated against sibling tools.

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