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

The description discloses a non-obvious cost behavior ('Uses this month's generation allowance') and implies an asynchronous operation by instructing to poll get_storyboard. These go beyond the annotations, which are minimal. No contradiction with the readOnly/destructive hints; the description's 'film/render' action aligns with readOnlyHint=false.

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 three short sentences with all key information front-loaded: the action, the dependency, the cost, and the polling step. There is no filler or redundant restating of the name.

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 fully documented input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the missing workflow context: when to invoke, the dependency on generate_storyboard_part, the allowance impact, and the monitoring call. An agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage, including enums, defaults, and an alias for motion/renderMode. The free-text description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 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 opens with 'Film the latest Story part,' a specific verb-resource pair that clearly identifies the operation. It further situates the tool in the pipeline ('After generate_storyboard_part — including continue my story — render that part'), distinguishing it from siblings like generate_storyboard_part and get_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 tool explicitly says when to use it: after generate_storyboard_part, including the 'continue my story' path. It also tells the agent what to do afterward ('Poll get_storyboard'). It does not include explicit 'when not to use' instructions, but the sequential context is clear and actionable.

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