Generate script

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare the safety profile), the description discloses critical behavior: the agent writes the content, server-side BYO generation is not implemented (pre-empting misinterpretation of the mode enum), and it states return values (grounding or saved script ID and version). This adds substantial value not present in structured fields.

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?

Sentences are front-loaded with the purpose, then routing, then the agent-responsibility caveat, then the return value. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies what's needed: the two-step workflow, who writes the content, the BYO limitation, and what is returned. An agent has everything required 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning: omitting 'script' retrieves grounding, and submitting a structured draft saves it. It also reinforces that 'mode' is a provenance label rather than an actual generation switch. Only minor additional detail on hook_type_lens/parent_script_id is absent.

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 two specific capabilities (prepare workspace grounding for a video script, or save an agent-written script as a new version) with the resource named precisely. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings revise_script, write_blog, and write_tweet. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening any schema.

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 gives explicit routing: use for a new draft, use revise_script for revising existing scripts, use write_blog/write_tweet for prose. It also documents the two-phase flow (omit script to retrieve context, then submit your structured draft), leaving nothing to inference.

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