generate_storyboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Create' without mentioning what the output is, whether it returns media, if it is asynchronous, or any prerequisites like connecting an account. The behavioral profile is essentially opaque.

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 sentence of only 11 words, front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every word contributes to purpose clarity, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has nested scene parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description only covers the high-level purpose. It does not explain return values, required scene fields, or operational context, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the input schema covers both top-level parameters (title and scenes) with descriptions. Baseline is 3 because schema coverage is high, though nested scene properties (prompt, shot_number) lack descriptions.

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 ('Create') and resource ('multi-frame visual sequence') and names the specific tool (Google Flow Storyboard Studio). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like generate_image and generate_video, which produce single-frame outputs.

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?

The mention of 'multi-frame visual sequence' implies use for storyboards rather than single images/videos, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. No alternative tool names are referenced.

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