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

Beyond the destructive annotation, the description clarifies that only the arrow is removed and the scenes themselves remain, which is important because destructiveHint=true could otherwise imply scene deletion. It also discloses that this creates one undo step, can be reverted via undo_storyboard, and spends no credits.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the important preservation, undo, and cost context. There is no filler.

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?

The description covers behavior, reversibility, cost, and scene preservation, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The main remaining gap is parameter-level detail, especially for storyboard_id, but the tool is simple enough that the description is nearly complete.

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' gives some indication that from_scene and to_scene are numeric scene references, but storyboard_id is not mentioned at all, and no parameter names or numbering semantics are explained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove the arrow from one scene to another.' It also distinguishes this from deleting scenes by clarifying 'The scenes stay on the board,' which separates it from delete_scene and related destructive operations.

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 description makes clear that this is for removing an existing connection while preserving the scenes, implicitly contrasting it with delete_scene. It also names undo_storyboard as the recovery path, though it does not explicitly point to connect_scenes as the counterpart for adding a connection.

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