raskadr_plan_edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states the critical non-destructive trait: 'without writing to the CapCut project.' It also indicates the behavior of validating and previewing. It does not detail failure responses or return format, but the core safety-relevant behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. The action and the critical non-writing guarantee are both front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to grasp the tool's purpose immediately.

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 tool has a moderately complex schema with discriminated operation types and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the core purpose and safety property, but it omits the expected response shape, the relationship to raskadr_inspect_project for obtaining segment IDs, and any workflow guidance. It is adequate for selection but not fully complete for confident invocation.

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?

The description names the four operation types, which partially maps to the operations union in the schema, but it does not explain the project parameter or how operations should be structured. Schema description coverage is only 50%, so the description should compensate more; it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Validate and preview') and names the exact resources it operates on ('split, trim, move, and delete operations'), while also stating that it does not write to the CapCut project. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like raskadr_health, raskadr_list_projects, and raskadr_inspect_project, none of which plan or preview edits.

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 makes the intended usage context clear: use this tool when you need to validate or preview editing operations without applying them. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as pointing to an actual edit-apply tool.

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