save_story_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses optimistic revision protection (so a stale expected_revision should be rejected) and immutable fields, but it does not cover side effects, authorization, error behavior on revision conflict, or the result/return value.

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 short sentences with front-loaded purpose: the first sentence states the action and object, and the second adds the key immutability constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, output schema, or per-parameter docs, the description provides core context but is incomplete: it does not explain what happens when the revision does not match, whether creation and modification differ in behavior, or what a successful save returns.

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%, so the description must compensate. 'Story content/layout JSON' semantically maps to the content property and 'optimistic revision protection' gives meaning to expected_revision, but story_id is not described and no parameter is explicitly named with its role.

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 a specific verb phrase ('Create or modify') and identifies the resource and payload ('Story content/layout JSON'). It clearly distinguishes this save-content tool from the image-focused siblings (update_story_image, upload_story_image) and read-only siblings (get_story_context, get_story_rules, list_stories).

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 intended use is implied by 'Create or modify Story content/layout JSON', but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The constraint that fixed docs and source metadata cannot be changed is a partial exclusion, but no sibling tools are referenced.

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