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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: old neighbours are joined and the moved scene is spliced in, the video stays whole, the operation uses one undo step, undo_storyboard reverses it, and no credits are spent. These are exactly the traits an agent needs to know before invoking a mutation tool.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the primary action comes first, followed by splice behavior, undo behavior, and credit cost. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and annotations already covering safety hints, the description is nearly complete: it explains ordering, splicing, undo, and cost. It leaves some parameter detail unstated, but the missing pieces are minor relative to what is covered.

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 compensate. It does explain the tricky after_scene parameter, including that 0 means first, but it does not add meaning for scene or storyboard_id beyond their names and types.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: moving one scene to sit right after another. It also clarifies the unusual ordering semantics with after_scene 0 putting the scene first, so an agent can distinguish this from update_scene, add_scene, delete_scene, and related sibling tools.

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 implied by the clear description of reordering a scene relative to another scene. The description mentions undo_storyboard for reversing the action, but it does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives such as update_scene or connect_scenes, nor does it state when not to use it.

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