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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still contributes by spelling out 'Irreversible' and the stage gate that blocks use after approve_script. It omits what happens to surviving scenes (index/ordering effects) or the error behavior if called too late.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the stage constraint and the irreversibility both front-loaded ahead of any detail.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations declaring destructiveness, this covers what an agent needs to select and call it. The only gap is downstream effect on remaining scenes, which is minor given the low 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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including where to source video_id and scene_id. The description adds nothing about them, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Delete a scene') plus a lifecycle constraint ('during script review (before approve_script)') that implicitly distinguishes it from edit_scene, regenerate_scene and add_scene. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands just under the top mark.

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?

'during script review (before approve_script)' gives a clear window in which the tool applies, which is real usage context. It does not state what to do instead once the script is approved, or point at edit_scene for the modify-don't-delete case.

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