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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it persists a draft diagram in the Design module, links it to the story, can run for about four minutes, returns "still running" with a toolCallId after roughly 52 seconds, continues in the background, ignores duplicate calls while running, and saves nothing if cancelled. These details are critical for an agent invoking a long-running, non-read-only operation.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then covers the diagram type and story identifier, then the async behavior. It is somewhat long, but nearly every sentence carries operational value for a complex long-running tool; minor tightening is possible but not required.

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 no output schema and complex async behavior, the description is largely complete: it explains persistence, linking, polling, repeated calls, and cancellation outcomes. The main remaining gap is that it does not describe the exact shape of a successful saved result beyond saying it is returned by stride.get_tool_call_status.

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 storyId, diagramType, and instructions thoroughly, including the enum values and AUTO default. The description reinforces the ticket-key/UUID format and type selection but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource: it generates an architecture diagram for a story using the story's title, description, and acceptance criteria. The word "architecture" and the diagram-type list distinguish it from sibling generation tools such as stride.generate_process and stride.generate_ui_design.

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 clear usage context: identify the story by ticket key or UUID, choose a diagram type or AUTO, and optionally pass extra instructions. It also explains the async continuation path via stride.get_tool_call_status and repeat-call behavior, though it does not explicitly compare itself against the other generate_* siblings.

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