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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the per-shot charge (3 tokens/second, 90 minimum), the iterative batch model, and the exact resumption signal ("when done is false, call again"). These cost and iteration details are exactly the behavior an agent needs before spending money and are not present in the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence earns its place by covering cost and resumption. The first sentence is dense and runs long, but every clause (numbering scheme, per-shot charge, output fields) carries real information.

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, and the description supplies the key return signal (done flag) plus the cost model and offline-iteration behavior. As a mutation tool with no annotations for safety, it covers the essentials, though it does not mention permissions or whether relog overwrites prior descriptions.

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 relog, track, and project_id are already documented in the schema, including the re-charge warning for relog. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Log the shots of your Editor project") and details the output artifacts written to the Storyboard card. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like quote_shot_log, export_shot_log, or premiere_shot_log, so sibling discrimination is left to inference.

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?

It implies the trigger condition ("after the customer said go to the quoted price"), which connects loosely to the quoting sibling, and gives a clear continuation rule for repeated calls. However, it names no alternative tool and states no explicit when-not, so guidance is implied rather than directive.

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