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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), it discloses the time cost ('a few minutes'), the cost ('Free'), and crucially the mutation semantics: nothing is deleted but storyboards/videos of changed scenes are marked outdated. This directly explains how the non-destructive hint actually manifests.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the cost/side-effect caveats follow. The closing 'Tell the user what you changed' is a useful behavioral instruction rather than padding, so structure serves the agent well.

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?

Behavioral context is strong for a mutation tool with no output schema (time, cost, side effects all covered), but with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage the definition omits any explanation of the three optional parameters, leaving an agent unable to use them confidently.

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 0% and the description names no parameters. The word 'script' loosely connects to script_text, but output_language, target_episode_count, and target_episode_duration_minutes are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so optional inputs are opaque.

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 ('Replace a Story mode project's script') plus the follow-on effect ('analyse it again'), which is unambiguous and readily separable from siblings like story_get_script or story_refresh_scene. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description (rewrite an existing Story project's script), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, nor any routing to alternatives such as story_refresh_scene for scene-only changes. Adequate but leaves selection logic to inference.

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