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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never mentions that expectedVersion is a required optimistic-concurrency guard, what happens on a version conflict, whether an existing slot prompt is replaced or rejected, or that createdBy must be declared.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and reasonably efficient, but the trailing spec citations '(§8, §11.6)' are opaque references an agent cannot resolve and consume space that could have carried behavioral detail.

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 17-parameter mutation tool with a nested anyOf target, required version token, no annotations and no output schema, this one-liner is far too thin. Nothing tells the agent about conflict/retry behavior, replacement semantics, or the meaning of most fields.

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% across 17 parameters with 6 required, and the description only glosses over 'target' (slot/placeholder). The many prompt fields (style, camera, lighting, motion, negativePrompt, durationSec, providerHints, aspectRatio, intent) and the critical expectedVersion/createdBy/projectId requirements get no explanation at all.

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 (attach) and resource (structured prompt document) plus the two target shapes (scene slot or placeholder) with the slot enum spelled out. It does not, however, distinguish this from prompt.draft, prompt.update, or shot.compile_prompt, which an agent must choose between.

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 explicit guidance on when to attach versus draft or update a prompt, nor on what happens if a prompt already occupies the slot. Usage is only implied by the verb 'attach' and the mention of slots and placeholders.

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