assemble_from_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what side effects occur (e.g., modifies project state), or if it requires existing assets. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 clear sentence, which is appropriately concise. No wasted words, but it could be more informative without being verbose.

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?

Given the complexity of an 'edit plan' tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about the plan's expected structure, any dependencies (like a loaded project), and what happens after assembly (e.g., does it render? update the timeline?). The lack of annotations and output schema increases the need for a richer description, which is absent.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only defines 'plan_json' as a string with no format details. The description says 'JSON string' which adds some context, but it doesn't explain the expected structure of the plan (e.g., keys, formats) or whether it's a path or inline JSON. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Assemble') and resource ('cut from a structured edit plan'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'render' or 'trim'. It is more specific than a tautology and gives enough to understand the primary function, though it could be more precise about the output.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_narrative' or 'render'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must have a project loaded) or the context in which this is the right choice. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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