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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says 'Start a Story project,' which implies a creation/write operation. This directly contradicts the read-only annotation and gives an agent conflicting safety signals. Additional behavioral notes about not writing a part or film cannot compensate for this contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core action, state an important exclusion, and provide the next steps. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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 description covers the initiation semantics and downstream workflow well, and an output schema exists so return values do not need prose. It loses a point because the read-only annotation conflict is unresolved and no guidance distinguishes this from estimate_storyboard or create_topic_short_story, though the latter may be out of scope.

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% and each parameter already has detailed descriptions, including enums and defaults. The tool description adds workflow context about pasting the whole story and continuing later, but most parameter meaning is already handled by the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Start a Story project') and clearly states what it does not do ('Does not write a part or film'). It also names the next tools in the workflow, which distinguishes it from generate_storyboard_part and render_storyboard.

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 explicitly gives the workflow: call this with a full story or script, then generate_storyboard_part, then render_storyboard. It even clarifies the branching decision between generating the first part and continuing on an existing projectId.

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