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

Annotation contradiction: annotations set readOnlyHint=true while the description repeatedly describes a write operation ('write the next Story part', 'Clip Studio writes the next part'). This inconsistency is serious and would mislead an agent about side effects.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core action, add source-of-truth guidance, and close with a useful exclusion and next step. No filler.

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?

For a tool with an output schema and full schema coverage for parameters, the description covers purpose, invocation context, continuity behavior, and the correct next tool. The only real gap is the annotation contradiction, which is scored separately.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds the continuity behavior and projectId provenance, but doesn't materially extend parameter meaning beyond the schema, making baseline 3 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?

Description states a specific action ('write the next Story part') and resource ('existing project'), and differentiates from create_storyboard by covering the first-part case and from render_storyboard by explicitly saying it 'does not film.' An agent can see what this tool does and what it is not.

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?

Explains exactly where projectId comes from ('Pass projectId from create_storyboard or get_storyboard') and names the successor step: 'Does not film — call render_storyboard after.' This is explicit when-to-use and follow-up guidance.

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