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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false; the description adds substantial context beyond them — zero credit cost, one text-model call, nothing rendered, no writes by default, and that uebernehmen=true appends scenes to mod_shotlist which downstream image/video steps read. It also flags that unknown art values are rejected with the known list, and instructs the agent to ask before writing.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and output shape, then alternatives, cost, and the write side effect. Every sentence carries information, though the single dense paragraph is longer than strictly necessary and the art-family enumeration could be tightened.

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 no output schema and a write-capable parameter, the description compensates fully: it describes what the returned shot list contains, the credit/render cost, the default no-write behavior, the opt-in write and its downstream consumers, and the follow-up tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema does not: the two art families (aufloesung = one moment from several angles; montage = time passing) and what each named art means, plus the 'never odd — runs in pairs' rule for laenge. The uebernehmen side effect is also clarified beyond the schema's short note.

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 and resource — break one scene into a structured shot list — and immediately names what each shot contains (size, angle, purpose, prompt) plus the shared floor plan. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling lab_shots_ableiten, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context ('plans shots that do not exist yet'), an explicit when-not with the alternative named ('NOT lab_shots_ableiten — that one groups clips that already exist'), and the downstream path ('generate the shots afterwards with lab_generate / lab_animate, one prompt each').

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