Create a new .kinoscript.json script file with a title, optional synopsis, and file name; it initializes one act, one scene, and one empty beat without overwriting existing files.
Create a new script file (one act, one scene, one empty beat). Never overwrites.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | Optional file name; defaults to the slugged title. | |
| title | Yes | ||
| synopsis | No | One or two sentences. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the default scaffold contents and the no-clobber property ("Never overwrites"), which is real behavioral value. However it does not say what happens if a script with that title/file already exists (error vs. silent no-op vs. returns existing), nor whether filesystem permissions or workspace scoping apply.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and the resulting structure front-loaded and the safety constraint immediately after. Every clause earns its place.
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 simple 3-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers what is created and that it will not clobber. It still leaves the agent guessing about the return value (file path? identifier?) and the collision/error behavior, which matter for a create operation.
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 67%, and the description's only parameter-relevant content is the implicit title→slugged-file-name linkage. The required `title` parameter has no description in the schema and no explanation here (format, uniqueness, length), and `synopsis` is left entirely to the schema. Some value added, but the coverage gap is not compensated.
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 ("Create a new script file") and adds the concrete default scaffold (one act, one scene, one empty beat), which tells the agent exactly what exists after the call. Siblings like list_scripts/read_script make the create-vs-read split obvious, but the description never names a sibling or draws the boundary explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the entry point before insert_act/insert_scene/insert_beat. There is no statement of when to use this versus editing an existing script, and no preconditions given. "Never overwrites" hints at a constraint but is not framed as guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.