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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: the cascade covers scenes and history, in-flight rendering/filming is halted, and previously exported clips/stills in the Library are explicitly preserved. That survival detail is the kind of thing an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope and then the routing advice. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the cascade, the interrupted work, the surviving exports, and the safer alternative. For a single-parameter destructive tool, nothing material 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?

Only one parameter (storyboard_id, a UUID) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description contributes nothing about it. The name and uuid format make it largely self-evident, which keeps this at the baseline rather than below it.

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 (delete) and resource (storyboard/film) plus the exact blast radius: the board, its scenes, and its history. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming edit_storyboard's archive op and delete_storyboard_template's separate scope.

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 an explicit alternative (edit_storyboard's `archive` op) and the precise condition that selects this tool instead: only when the user actually asked for deletion. The reversible-vs-permanent tradeoff is stated outright.

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