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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that by specifying exactly what is captured (scenes, prompts, durations, connections) and what is deliberately excluded (stills, clips, cast), which tells the agent the resulting template's scope. It does not address repeat-save behavior or permissions, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the exclusion clause placed immediately after so the agent's mental model is corrected before it calls the tool.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the capture/exclusion detail, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly; only minor edges like naming collisions remain unstated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning — and it does: 'a named template' maps to the required name, and 'a board's' maps to storyboard_id. It does not mention the name length constraint (1–100) or duplicate-name behavior, but both parameters are semantically anchored rather than left as bare strings.

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 — freezing a board's scenes, prompts, durations and connections into a named template — and the clarifying clause 'a template is the format, not the footage' sharply separates it from rendering/export tools in the sibling list. An agent can tell what is being created without opening the schema.

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 purpose: this is the tool that captures an existing board as a reusable format, as opposed to apply_storyboard_template, delete_storyboard_template or list_storyboard_templates. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or states when to prefer this over, say, rendering or exporting the board.

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