interview_story_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses validation of STAR fields (non-empty) and the ValueError on failure. However, it omits details on handling of optional fields (effect, competencies), whether the tool appends or overwrites, and any side effects like file creation or state changes.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second details validation behavior. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Has output schema (not shown) so return values need not be described. However, lacks context on file handling (append/overwrite, existence check) and behavior for optional fields. Adequate but not thorough for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), but the nested 'story' object's properties lack individual descriptions. The description adds validation constraints (non-empty STAR fields) beyond the schema, providing useful but limited additional meaning. Baseline 3 for full coverage with some added value.

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 clearly states the action ('Add'), the resource ('STAR+E story'), and the target ('local JSON story bank'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'interview_story_suggest' (suggests stories) and 'interview_mock_evaluate' (evaluates mock interviews).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to add vs suggest or evaluate). No prerequisites or context provided, such as whether the story bank must exist or how to handle duplication.

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