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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context — and it does, with 'Changes no picture and spends no credits,' a concrete cost/side-effect statement not present in structured fields. It does not clarify what the destructive hint actually affects (e.g. whether an existing verdict record is replaced), which keeps it short of a 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?

Two sentences, no filler: the operation and its binding to one picture come first, followed by the required inputs and the no-side-effect guarantee. 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description plus annotations plus a fully documented 5-param schema cover what an agent needs to invoke this correctly. The only gap is the unresolved tension between destructiveHint=true and the claim that nothing is changed, which the description leaves for the agent to reconcile.

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 already carries its own description including enum semantics for verdict, so the baseline is 3. The description restates three of the five inputs ('the revision, shot and still asset the customer reviewed') but adds no format, constraint, or identifier-provenance detail beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Record the customer's ... likeness verdict') scoped to 'one exact saved picture,' and the confirmed/rejected pairing distinguishes it from sibling confirmation tools like studio_storyboard_stills_confirm or studio_storyboard_look_accept. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 description names preconditions ('Requires the revision, shot and still asset the customer reviewed'), which implies the call happens after a customer review. However, it never says when to prefer this over adjacent verdict/confirm tools (e.g. studio_storyboard_stills_confirm, studio_storyboard_approve), so routing remains inferential.

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