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

Annotations already convey this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive tool. The description adds 'Inspect one Story Kit and its revision', which aligns with annotations without contradicting them. The added value is minimal—just specifying the 'revision' aspect—but since annotations handle the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate. No contradiction detected.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Inspect one Story Kit and its revision') and places context later ('before generating or updating a story'). No extraneous words. It could be structured to hint at the required parameter, but it remains efficient.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 params, 1 required, no enums/nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. However, it fails to describe the 'storyKitId' parameter, which is required and has no schema description, leaving a gap for the agent. Additional hints about what kind of story kit (e.g., draft or published) would be helpful.

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 50%: one required param (storyKitId) has no description, while workspaceId has a description in the schema. The description does not document the 'storyKitId' parameter or explain its format/expected value, and it doesn't clarify that 'workspaceId' is optional. With two parameters and half undocumented in both schema and description, a baseline 3 is reasonable, but no extra value is added.

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 uses the verb 'Inspect' with 'one Story Kit and its revision', which clearly specifies the resource and scope (single item plus revision). It also alludes to a workflow purpose ('before generating or updating a story'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like story_kits_list (which lists kits) and story_kits_apply (which applies a kit). However, it doesn't explicitly exclude other potential actions like copying or deleting, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 implies usage context ('before generating or updating a story'), which helps an agent understand the typical workflow position. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool vs alternatives like story_kits_list (for browsing) or projects_get (for inspecting a project instead of a story kit). No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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