save_book_storyboard

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 disclose a non-obvious side effect: saving the storyboard also generates prompts.md and the exact list of required image keys, which tells the agent this is not a plain write. It does not cover overwrite/merge behavior, validation failures, or permissions, which is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the step marker and the primary action, with the side effects appended. No filler text, though the backtick-quoted fragments make it read like a changelog line rather than prose.

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 exists, so the return value (the generated key list) need not be explained. The remaining gap is the required nested storyboard object, which is undocumented in both schema and description; for a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, that leaves the agent under-informed about what to supply.

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% for both parameters, and the description does not compensate. It hints that the book is identified by a slug and that the storyboard is a JSON file, but gives no indication of the storyboard object's required structure (nested, additionalProperties true) or any slug format constraints.

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 ('Save') plus the resource ('complete storyboard.json for a book') and the derived artifacts it produces (prompts.md, required image keys). An agent can tell this is the storyboard-persistence step, though it does not name or differentiate itself from any sibling tool.

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 'Step 2' prefix implies a position in a workflow (after onboarding/project creation, before image ingestion and publishing), which is useful ordering guidance. However, it names no alternative and states no explicit when/when-not condition, leaving usage to inference.

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