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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it is a single undo step, undo_storyboard reverses it, and it consumes no credits. It stops short of saying what happens when the same pair is connected twice (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or whether ordering is validated.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the action, then reversibility, then cost. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 annotations, an output schema, and only three required scalar parameters, the description covers what an agent needs: action, effect, reversibility, and cost. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior on duplicate connections, which is minor for this 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. 'By number' usefully signals that from_scene and to_scene are scene numbers rather than IDs, but storyboard_id goes unmentioned, and the 1-based constraint (exclusiveMinimum 0) and the directionality of from/to are not spelled out.

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 resource ('Draw an arrow from one scene to another') plus the effect on the storyboard (a second video path via branch or convergence). It doesn't explicitly name disconnect_scenes as the inverse operation, so sibling differentiation is only implied rather than stated.

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 branch/convergence framing implies when an agent would want this, but there is no explicit 'use when' or 'do not use when' guidance and no mention of disconnect_scenes as the alternative for removing a link. Usage must be inferred.

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