plan_video

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context the annotations cannot: a card reserves that day's posting slot, a post with a time fills it, and the board expands to the card's week. It does not state reversibility or what happens to an existing card on the target day, so this is a modest add rather than rich disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its three variants, and every later sentence carries domain meaning. Sentences about the thumbnail and user drag-reordering are the softest, but they justify the 'before' parameter and the card model, so waste is low.

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 a 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description closes the important loops: what a card means, how it interacts with scheduled posts, and what to read afterward ('Returns get_plan'). Only the fate of an already-placed card on the target day and permission expectations remain unstated.

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 day, before, and session in full (including the empty-day removal and the 12-week limit). The description only loosely reinforces these through its card-ordering narrative and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource with all three modes spelled out: place a session's video card on a day, move it to another day, or clear the day. It points the agent at the read counterpart ('Returns get_plan') but never distinguishes itself from the sibling set_plan, so an agent comparing the two must still open the schemas.

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?

'Use it when the user asks you to plan videos; one call per video' gives an explicit trigger and a batching rule. It also encodes the removal condition (day empty). There is no explicit when-not guidance relative to set_plan or set_post, so it falls short of a 5.

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