Validate Platform Publish Package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context: it is local-only, never uploads, never mutates Premiere, and it validates against approximate (not guaranteed) limits, which warns the agent results may be soft.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the outputs, then the safety constraint. No padding and every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and it still summarizes them (violations, warnings, normalized hashtags, counts). Annotations cover the safety profile. The only gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to prefer this over neighboring validation/planning tools.

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% across 14 params, so the schema carries parameter documentation. The description names the metadata categories (title, description, hashtags, content flags) and the rendered file, adding light orientation but no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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 (validate) and resource (rendered file plus publish metadata) and scopes it to 'one platform's approximate 2026 publish limits.' The 'Local-only; never uploads or changes Premiere' clause clearly separates it from mutation/delivery siblings like export_sequence or verify_delivery_conformance.

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?

Usage is implied – validate a publish package before posting to a given platform – but no alternative is named and no explicit when/when-not is given. Siblings such as plan_platform_delivery_matrix or verify_delivery_conformance are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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