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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the optimistic-concurrency contract (expectedRevision must match the current saved plan) and the idempotency key semantics of operationId, plus the absence of model calls or credit charges — real operational context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the concurrency/idempotency mechanics. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the mutation's risk profile, retry behavior, and cost. The one gap is failure behavior — what happens when expectedRevision is stale (error vs. reconcile) is not stated, which matters for a destructive, revision-guarded call.

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%, and every parameter (lineId, sceneIndex, expectedRevision, operationId) is already documented there, including the source tool for saved ids. The description names expectedRevision and operationId but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a precise verb+resource: 'Remove one saved dialogue line.' An agent can immediately distinguish it from studio_film_add_line and studio_film_edit_line without opening any schema. The scope word 'saved' signals it operates on persisted plan state rather than a draft.

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 conveys a cost signal ('No model call or credit charge') and retry behavior, which implicitly tells the agent this is a cheap, safe-to-retry mutation. However, it never states when to prefer this over studio_film_edit_line (e.g., emptying a line) or that studio_film_read is required first to obtain lineId/revision — that sequencing only appears in the schema property text.

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