screenstudio_plan_layouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that (the tool returns ops rather than mutating). It adds substantial context beyond the annotations: edit points always land in a pause, are at least 5s apart, and the returned ops 'clear the layouts track first' in screenstudio_editor_apply — a downstream destructive effect worth knowing.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries information — no filler. The middle section is a dense, jargon-heavy run-on ('the cutout camera is the default layout, on the side away from the clicks...') that takes effort to parse, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 21 parameters, no output schema and no parameter descriptions in most of the schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what it returns ('ops for screenstudio_editor_apply, the stretches, a layout check and notes saying why') and how the two `from` modes differ. It leaves the behavioral effect of many tuning parameters unexplained, so it is not fully complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 19% across 21 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does for the policy-critical ones: `side` ('away from the clicks'), `bookends` (full screen for opening line and sign-off), `splitScreen` (under long talk with nothing clicked), `zoom` (screen only while a zoom asks the viewer to read) and `minStretchMs` wiring. However, roughly half the parameters (markers, markerBeatsMs, maxZooms, targetMs, structure, removeFillers, tightenPausesMs, keep/drop) get no explanation at all.

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 and resource — 'plans camera layouts from the speech, clicks and zooms' — and frames the tool as a 'camera director for talking-head recordings'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like screenstudio_plan_edit (which plans edits) and screenstudio_editor_apply (which consumes the returned ops).

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?

Gives explicit routing advice for the `from` parameter: 'from timeline (default) plans over the open editor's current cut; from plan plans over a fresh screenstudio_plan_edit plan, so pass the same recipe and plan options you applied it with'. It also names the downstream consumer (screenstudio_editor_apply) and a no-op case ('A recording with no camera gets no layouts'), but never states a when-not-to-use condition.

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