plan_storyboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further: it does not explain what a 'mechanism' is, what the four chapters contain, whether output is a persisted asset or an in-memory spec, or how time/frame/progress ranges are derived.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally fine. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy, so it earns only a middling score.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a domain-specific vocabulary, the description should carry the explanatory load and does not. An agent cannot determine what the four chapters are, what the return shape looks like, or how to choose a mechanism value.

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 all three params, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. 'mechanism-specific' weakly gestures at the required mechanism enum, and 'time/frame/progress ranges' loosely hints at duration/fps, but the four enum values and the fps values are never mentioned or explained.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'storyboard/shots' are present, but the key qualifiers ('mechanism-specific', 'four-chapter') are undefined jargon that an agent cannot map to concrete output. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like build_motion_timeline or create_cinematic_brief, which also produce timed cinematic planning artifacts.

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, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many related planning tools (build_motion_timeline, create_cinematic_brief, plan_visual_qa). The agent is left to infer the tool's role entirely.

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