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

With annotations declaring the write/non-destructive profile, the description still adds substantial context: it preserves scenes, dialogue, timing, shot IDs, cast, identity choices and references; it returns synchronously with ready or needs_visual_world; an already-valid world yields ready with no new revision; and it explicitly disclaims planning model, queue, provider or credit use. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and preservation guarantee, then return behavior, then the no-cost disclaimer. Nothing is redundant, though the 'no planning model, queue...' clause is a slightly dense tail rather than an integrated statement.

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 a 3-parameter write tool with a nested object schema, full description coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, preservation semantics, conditional returns and absence of side effects/cost. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 projectId, visualWorld and expectedRevisionId are fully documented in the schema (including revision/concurrency meaning and field constraints). The description merely references expectedRevisionId without adding syntax or format meaning beyond it, 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 specific verb and resource — 'Validates and saves visualWorld' — scoped to 'an existing Music or Film storyboard at expectedRevisionId'. An agent can tell this apart from storyboard_write/submit by the visualWorld focus, but the description never names or contrasts with those siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 describes the conditional outcomes (ready when valid, needs_visual_world when absent) which implies when the tool is useful, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names an alternative such as studio_storyboard_write. Usage must be inferred from the outcome semantics.

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