preview_storyboard

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds that the result is an inline contact sheet plus scene timeline, but it does not explain side effects, why it is not read-only, or how network access affects behavior.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose and return content appear immediately.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain the return shape more fully, and with openWorldHint=true plus an allow_network parameter it should clarify network implications. It names the returned artifacts but leaves key invocation-relevant behavior undocumented.

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, but it never mentions storyboard_id or allow_network. 'Its scene timeline' only weakly implies a storyboard target, and allow_network is entirely unaddressed.

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 ('Return') and concrete outputs ('contact sheet inline and its scene timeline'), making the preview purpose clear. It is distinguishable from get_storyboard by its semantic-review framing, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

'For semantic review' implies the usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_storyboard, preview_voice, or generate_video, and no when-not conditions.

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