Create storyboard draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses behavior (creates version 1, prepopulates derivable data, blanks content, marks unsupported modules as INSUFFICIENT_SOURCE_CONTENT) and explicitly avoids fabrication. It could be clearer on side effects like overwriting existing drafts or expected return, but it is quite transparent for a create operation.

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?

Three concise, well-structured sentences convey purpose, scope, and behavior without fluff. Front-loaded with the main action and efficiently explains what is prefilled, what is left blank, and how unsupported modules are handled.

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 complex creation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: what is created, what is left for later, and the marking convention. It could mention implications for existing storyboards or completion/return values, but it gives sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly in a multi-step process.

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 does not directly elaborate on individual parameters; it stays at a high level. Since schema coverage is 60%, some parameters have descriptions in the schema, but the description itself adds minimal parameter-level nuance beyond the schema. The behavior around modules and timing is implied but not mapped to parameters.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new storyboard artifact as version 1 and enumerates exactly what is prepopulated (modules, unit codes, durations, NOS codes, empty rows/slides). It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_storyboard_content by explaining what it does not do (fill content).

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 description provides clear context on when to use this tool (before content population) and explicitly references set_storyboard_content as the follow-up, giving a workflow hint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the one sibling.

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