generate_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether generation overwrites existing scripts, whether the operation is asynchronous, what it returns, or whether it has side effects. The regenerate parameter hints at overwrite behavior, but the description itself does not clarify this.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and the most important scoping detail ('single slide') is included.

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 no annotations, the description is incomplete for practical use. It does not mention how the generated script is returned, whether generation is asynchronous, or what happens when a script already exists. An agent would need to infer these details from the regenerate parameter or sibling tool behavior.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the context of 'narration script' and 'single slide', but it does not add meaning to slide_id, regenerate, or prompt_style beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (generate), the object (a narration script), and the scope (a single slide). This distinguishes it from siblings like batch_generate_scripts and generate_outline without requiring schema inspection.

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 use this tool versus batch_generate_scripts or other alternatives. The phrase 'single slide' implies a use case, but the description never says 'use this for one slide, use batch_generate_scripts for multiple slides' or similar.

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