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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive/non-idempotent) by disclosing sequential panel queuing, the fact that the first failure (e.g. ERR_TOKENS_INSUFFICIENT) halts the remainder, and how to poll results with get_character_image. That is exactly the kind of cost/failure/auth context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, opening with a tag header and the resource definition before schema detail. Nearly every clause carries information; the only mild bloat is the reference-style shorthand '[character1] ... in visual'.

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, the description usefully enumerates the return fields (images_album_uuid, queued, total, images, error) and the polling follow-up. The one real hole is the undocumented `story` parameter in a 10-parameter mutation tool.

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 compensate and largely does: it expands `panels` into a nested structure with `visual` and `dialogue` (speaker numbering, narrator), defines `look`, `style`, `dialogue_mode` values, and points `image_aspect`/`character_assets`/`image_ai` to create_character_image. It leaves `story` undocumented and only implies `character_uuids`.

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 plus the composition model ('an album (kind STORYBOARD) with one picture per panel, all drawn from the same 1-3 READY characters'), which separates it from create_character_image and create_images_album. It never names or contrasts a sibling such as plan_film_storyboard directly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Conveys implied prerequisites (1-3 READY characters) and queue behavior, but gives no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance nor any when-not condition, even though plan_film_storyboard and create_images_album sit adjacent in the catalog.

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