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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuine context beyond that — a server-recorded approval gate and a shared credit ceiling — but it never explains what 'destructive' means here, what happens if approval is absent, or how the checkpoint is recorded.

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, with the action stated first and the precondition second. Slightly undermined by compressed internal jargon ('approved bounded native Film specialist') that costs clarity without adding precision.

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?

Return values are covered by the existing output schema and parameters are fully documented, so the description only needs to carry behavior and prerequisites. It does state approval and credit constraints, but leaves undefined how approval is obtained and what the 'review checkpoint' commits the caller to — meaningful gaps for a destructive, credit-consuming operation.

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 both parameters (proposal_id, request_key) are documented in the schema, including the retry-reuse note for request_key. The description contributes no additional meaning about either parameter, 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 concrete verb and outcome: runs a Film specialist to author a saved storyboard and a review checkpoint, which distinguishes it from siblings like native.apply_film_studio_actions or native.start_film_review. The qualifier 'approved bounded native Film specialist' is jargon-heavy and only loosely defines what is actually produced, but the core action and artifact are identifiable.

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?

Gives one real precondition ('Requires server-recorded approval within the shared credit ceiling'), which tells the agent this cannot be called cold. However, it never names an alternative or says when to choose this over adjacent storyboard/review tools such as native.write_visual_program_draft or native.start_film_review, so routing still requires inference from the name.

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