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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing asynchronous completion (2-3 minutes), cost-on-finish with a concrete credit example, the prerequisite of approving character references, and the destructive consequence of deleting every existing page/panel including drawn panels. This is rich, specific behavioral disclosure with no contradiction.

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?

Every sentence adds necessary operational or cautionary information. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and asynchronous behavior, followed by cost, prerequisite, and destructive warning. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 an asynchronous, destructive, paid operation with no output schema, the description covers all critical operational aspects: what starts, when results appear, cost behavior, required preconditions, and the destructive parameter condition. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and avoid data loss.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate. It strongly clarifies replaceExisting semantics by linking it to destructive deletion of existing panels and drawn art. projectId is not described, but its role is self-evident from the tool name and the required-field context, so the gap is minor.

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: it 'starts writing the script' and enumerates the content produced (chapters, pages, panels, dialogue, captions). It also distinguishes its asynchronous nature from the status-tracking sibling tool, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: returns immediately, results appear via aetherwave_comic_status, character references must be approved first, and rewriting requires replaceExisting: true when panels exist. It does not explicitly name alternatives to exclude, but the guidance is sufficient for correct use.

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