storyboard

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing. It does not say where the spreadsheet is written (the required 'output' argument suggests a filesystem write, which is a side effect worth flagging), whether it overwrites existing files, whether it consumes model credits, or whether it requires API credentials. The existence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, but not these side-effect and permission concerns.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. However, this level of brevity is under-specification rather than true conciseness for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations.

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?

An output schema means return values need not be explained, but for a 9-parameter tool with no annotations the description is far too thin. Key operational facts, such as what the spreadsheet is for and how the configuration parameters shape it, are missing.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and it barely does. Only the roles of 'script' (input text) and loosely 'output' can be inferred from the single sentence; 'chain', 'clips', 'model', 'ratio', 'duration_s', 'resolution', and 'text_model' are completely unexplained, including defaults and how they affect the split.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Split a script' into a 'batch prompt spreadsheet'. That is more specific than a tautology and distinguishes it from generate_video or resume_video, which produce videos rather than a planning spreadsheet. It stops short of naming siblings or clarifying what a 'batch prompt spreadsheet' actually contains.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no indication of whether this is a prerequisite step before generate_video, an alternative to it, or a standalone export. No prerequisites (e.g., check_key, estimate_cost) or exclusions are mentioned.

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