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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that no timeline/track/scene state is mutated, which is the key side-effect boundary, but it says nothing about persistence of the staged scenario, whether it is idempotent, what happens on validation failure, or how expectedVersion conflicts surface.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then the sequencing constraint; nothing is padded. The parenthetical spec citations ("§9, §11.2") are internal doc noise an agent can't act on, which keeps it off a 5.

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 5-parameter tool with deeply nested required structures (scenes → shots → camera/lighting), no annotations, and no output schema, two sentences are thin. An agent gets the sequencing but not what it receives back (a scenario id?), how scene lengths derive from shots, or how expectedVersion interacts with project state.

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 should explain parameter meaning. It names three of five inputs (concept, treatment, scenes) in passing but adds no semantics, and critically never explains projectId or expectedVersion — the latter being an optimistic-concurrency token whose misuse would cause confusing failures. Rich nested shot/camera semantics exist only in the schema, not here.

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 uses a specific verb ("Stage") plus an enumerated resource set ("concept + treatment + scene list") and explicitly contrasts with if-scenario.apply_to_timeline. It falls short of 5 because "stage" is jargon about what actually gets created/persisted, and it doesn't distinguish from other creation siblings like scene.create or shot.create.

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?

It gives explicit next-step guidance ("call scenario.apply_to_timeline next") and states the boundary of effect ("does not touch tracks/scenes/timeline"), which is real when-to-use/when-not info. It doesn't say when to use this versus building scenes individually via scene.create/shot.create, which is the main routing ambiguity among siblings.

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