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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine domain behavior the annotations cannot: output is vendor-neutral, overlay text is kept separate from generated imagery, and reference links are preserved when present. It stops short of stating what happens on malformed or incomplete plans.

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?

One sentence with zero filler; the core transformation is front-loaded and the two preservation guarantees follow. It is slightly crammed, but every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a single nested-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description does not explain the plan structure or the output's intended downstream use beyond 'vendor-neutral', leaving a substantive gap for correct invocation.

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% on a deeply nested single parameter (scenes with role/camera/transition enums, palette, durations). The description implicitly maps to 'text' (user overlay text) and 'reference_scene_id' (reference links) and confirms the input is a full plan object, but leaves roles, timing, and transition semantics undocumented.

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 output artifact: turn a supplied structure into vendor-neutral shot briefs. 'Vendor-neutral' and 'shot briefs' implicitly differentiate it from siblings like critique_plan or reference_brief, but no sibling is named or explicitly excluded.

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 phrase 'a supplied structure' hints that a plan must already exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no statement of when to prefer plan_structure, adapt_scene, or reference_brief instead. The agent must infer its place in the pipeline.

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