set_script

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses that the tool replaces the existing script and returns pacing/quality warnings. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or other side effects. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose and followed by actionable guidance. Every sentence earns its place, no wasted words.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (replace script, return warnings) and advises on next steps. It could mention the structure of the warnings or that it returns the full script, but overall it is sufficient.

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 input schema already includes descriptions for the parameters (narration: 'keep under ~40 words', imagePrompts: '1-3 concrete visual moments...'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With schema coverage effectively high, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly states it 'Set (or replace) the full scene list' with per-scene narration and image prompts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_narration and generate_images which handle individual elements.

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 provides context: 'You are the writer — bring a hook, concrete details, and one idea per scene' and says to fix warnings before generating assets. It implies when to use (before generating) but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use.

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