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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior the schema cannot express: an entitlement gate that rejects feature kinds the account lacks, and that the storyboard is created empty with cards/shots populated later in Bardiyah. It omits error shape and whether the new storyboard id is returned, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the parameter warning. No filler, though the closing clause about Bardiyah is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous about what it means for the caller.

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?

With 5 flat parameters, no output schema and no nesting, the description covers the main risk (wrong feature kind) and the post-creation state. It could say more about what happens to script_id when omitted, but overall an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds only the refusal consequence of the type enum. No added meaning for title, script, script_id or status — baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: "Create a storyboard for a script." That distinguishes it from get-storyboard, list-storyboards and update-storyboard, but it never names those siblings or states scope explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than declared.

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?

"Choose the kind carefully: basic, advanced and cinematic are separate features, and one the account does not have is refused" gives real guidance on how to pick the type parameter and what failure looks like. However there is no guidance on when to use this versus create-script or update-storyboard, so usage context is only implied.

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