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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the return content (canonical stub markdown with id), the mandatory write-then-update sequence, the inline AGENT_WORKFLOW_ACTIVITY recording side effect, and a hard validation rule ('Never write story markdown that omits id'). It stops short of stating permission requirements, idempotency, or failure behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then the workflow and constraints; every sentence carries information. The compressed parenthetical listing flat traceability fields is dense but functional, not 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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return content, the required call sequence, path validation, and traceability recording. For a 14-param mutation tool this is close to complete, though most individual params remain unexplained.

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 0% across 14 params, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for platformFilePath (must be under plans/stories/ and end with .md) and explains the nested agentTraceability vs flat field form, but the remaining ~11 traceability params (gitSha, actorType, agentModel, branchName, etc.) get no explanation. Partial compensation only.

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+resource ('Create a user story') and adds the distinctive behavior of allocating a real US-<ordinalId>. It explicitly distinguishes itself from update-user-story and report-agent-action, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('call this FIRST') within a described blocking workflow (create → write to repo → update-user-story), and states when an alternative is not needed ('no separate report-agent-action needed for this create'). Nothing about ordering is left to inference.

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