Send a creative draft to Studio for review

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'Nothing is applied to a project and no media is generated' clarifies the side-effect profile, and the note about cancelled/expired/replaced requests rejecting late results discloses a state-dependent failure condition.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what is submitted and what kind values mean, followed by the no-side-effects clarification and the constraint list. Each sentence carries distinct information with minimal waste.

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 2-param tool with a rich oneOf schema and an output schema present, the description covers the branching payload shapes, the side-effect profile, and key integrity constraints. It stops short of describing the submission lifecycle or sibling relationships, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does add constraints not encoded in the schema: unique IDs, valid cast references, at most 24 scenes, and 600 planned seconds (the per-shot schema only caps individual durations at 120, not the total). It doesn't directly explain the 'id' or 'result' parameters, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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 a specific verb+resource: it returns a text proposal for kind creative or the complete version-1 drama script for kind drama, which is precise about the payload this tool accepts. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like studio_fail_request, but the submission semantics are clear.

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?

It implies usage through the 'kind creative' vs 'kind drama' branching and the note about cancelled/expired/replaced requests rejecting late results, which tells the agent when a call will fail. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over studio_fail_request or how it relates to the request lifecycle.

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