fablecut_encode_profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the hot-reload behavior, that profiles are dry-run against ffmpeg at export start so bad args are rejected before rendering, and the default color matrix/range (BT.709 tv). These are non-obvious operational traits an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and profile shape before the editing and validation caveats. Slightly dense but every sentence adds distinct information; nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description takes on the return-shape burden and does so by describing the per-profile fields. Combined with the hot-reload and dry-run notes, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret the result.

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 'detail' and 'profile' parameters are already documented. The description adds useful context about what a profile contains (raw ffmpeg args, jpegQuality, extension, color), which indirectly explains what 'detail' expands, but does not add syntax or defaults 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List ffmpeg encoding profiles') and names the source file and export mode, which no sibling tool touches. An agent can distinguish this from the project/media/status siblings immediately.

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?

Explicitly states the purpose: 'Use to pick a profile id for project.encodeProfile,' tying it to a downstream field. It also covers extension ('Edit encoding-profiles.json on disk to add custom profiles'), but gives no explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing.

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