Rewrite the whole screenplay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates that the tool replaces the entire document text, which implies a destructive, full-overwrite behavior. It does not describe side effects beyond the overwrite or response behavior, but the core destructive trait is explicit.

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 description is two sentences long with no wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the usage guidance for when to prefer an alternative is concise and immediately actionable.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is sufficient. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and how it differs from the most relevant sibling, while the schema covers parameter details.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description reinforces that the input is 'new Fountain text' but does not add substantial meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions.

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 a specific verb, 'Replace', and a clear resource, 'the ENTIRE text of a Beat document', making the operation unambiguous. The title 'Rewrite the whole screenplay' reinforces the scope, and the description explicitly distinguishes it from beat_replace_scene, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for full rewrites' and 'prefer beat_replace_scene for targeted edits so you don't disturb the rest of the script.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus the alternative, with no inference required.

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