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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description goes far beyond them: it discloses exactly what is destroyed (uploaded images/audio removed, generated images retained in Generation Center), a downstream side effect (a remaining shot that continued a deleted shot becomes standalone), and that deletion cannot be undone from version History.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the consequences, then the confirm protocol, then ID sourcing and the replace workflow. Every sentence earns its place, though the paragraph is dense and slightly long for a single tool.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description describes precisely what the preview returns (shot label, scene, whether it has a storyboard image, how many have images, which remaining shots lose their continuation). An agent has everything needed to invoke this safely.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: confirm is a dry-run preview when omitted, sceneIds deletes every shot of those scenes, and shotIds and sceneIds can be combined. It does not restate the schema's length/count constraints, which is fine.

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 (delete) and resource (storyboard shots), and enumerates the two selection modes (shotIds, sceneIds, or both). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutation tools like create_shots and update_shot.

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 call sequencing (call without confirm first, ask user once, then call again with confirm: true), names where IDs come from (list_shots, get_project_outline, never invent them), and prescribes the replace-a-scene workflow (delete with sceneIds, then create_shots). Alternatives and preconditions are all present.

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