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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important traits: 10-credit cost, async job execution with get_call as the reader, and Markdown output. It omits auth/permission expectations despite an api_key parameter, and leaves unclear what input plan/skeleton (referenced as 'the plan's sections') must exist beforehand.

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?

A single dense sentence leads with the tool's identity and cost, then lists outputs, followed by a short operational note. The telegraphic style is efficient with no filler, though the compressed comma list takes a beat to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so listing return contents is partly redundant, but the async job lifecycle note is genuinely useful. The real gap is the near-absent explanation of the subject/audience/minutes inputs for a 5-parameter generative tool.

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 only 20% – just idempotency_key is documented – and the description does not explain subject, audience, or api_key at all. Only 'its runtime counted from its words' loosely hints at the minutes parameter, which defaults to 8, so the description falls well short of compensating for the coverage gap.

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?

The description enumerates the concrete deliverables (hooks, plan sections with re-hooks/payoffs, the script itself, runtime, flagged lines, fact-check list) that make this a full script-writing tool. It is distinguishable from siblings like write_hook or write_ideas by the breadth of output, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the credit cost and 'Runs as a job (get_call reads it)' tell an agent this is an expensive async operation to poll afterward. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over review_script, write_upload_pack, or the narrower write_hook/write_titles tools.

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