write_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. It does not disclose any behavioral traits, such as whether it reads from a specific source, whether it mutates state, or whether it requires prior research; 'curated' is vague and lacks specifics.

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 brief and front-loaded, conveying the core purpose in a single sentence with no redundancy. However, brevity comes at the cost of essential details.

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 is part of a complex video production pipeline with multiple sibling tools, yet the description is minimal and lacks context about the script's role, relationship to other tools, or expected output. With no annotations and no output schema, this is grossly incomplete.

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%, and the description does not explain what 'topic' or 'research_pack' mean or how they are used. Both parameters are entirely underexplained; the description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 states the action ('Return') and a clear object ('a curated example script') but does not specify what kind of script or how context is used. It does not differentiate from siblings; it is not clear whether this is for generating a text script for an episode or a coding script.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_episode or build_storyboard. With 11 siblings, an explicit usage context is critical but entirely absent.

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