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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: created scenes arrive 'unshot,' and the operation is atomic — 'Refused whole, with nothing made, when the template has more scenes than the plan allows.' That refusal/rollback semantics is real disclosure the annotations do not carry. Missing only permission/credit notes.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the creation scope is front-loaded and the atomic-refusal caveat is placed last as a trailing constraint. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 return values need no explanation, and the description covers creation semantics, resulting state, atomic failure, and the follow-on flow. The only gap is not indicating where a valid template_id comes from.

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 0% with 2 params. The description resolves a genuine ambiguity for `name` ('is the new film's'), clarifying it is not the template's name, but says nothing about `template_id` beyond what the uuid schema implies. Partial compensation 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Make a new storyboard from a template') and immediately scopes what gets created: 'every scene and connection, unshot.' It is clearly distinguishable from create_storyboard (blank board) and its sibling save_storyboard_template (the inverse direction).

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 names the downstream workflow tools (generate_scene_images, animate_scenes, render_storyboard), which gives implied context for when to use it, but never states when to choose this over create_storyboard or where template_id is obtained (list_storyboard_templates). No explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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