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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the generated artifact (5-second cuts, timecodes, camera movements, foley cues), but says nothing about whether the storyboard is persisted, whether an API key is required despite the optional api_key parameter, rate limits, or cost. The output-format detail is real value, but key operational traits are missing.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action and the produced artifact front-loaded, and no filler. Every clause (duration range, cut length, output fields) earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description effectively substitutes by enumerating what the storyboard contains (timecodes, scene titles, camera movements, audio/foley cues), so an agent knows what comes back. It is still thin on auth/persistence behavior and on distinguishing itself from sibling generation tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description corroborates the duration range ('from 30 seconds up to 5 minutes') matching duration_seconds, but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('AI multi-scene storyboard') and specifies output granularity (sequential 5-second cinematic cuts with timecodes, scene titles, camera movements, audio/foley cues). It is clearly distinct from reeling_stitch_storyboard and reeling_generate_video, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus reeling_generate_video or reeling_stitch_storyboard, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is the implicit 30-second to 5-minute duration scope, which is context but not guidance.

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