pws_create_storyline

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

Annotations already establish destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the useful 'PREVIEW OR CREATE' distinction, but it does not explain how those modes are selected or what consequences creation has. It does not contradict the annotations, but it leaves key behavioral mechanics unstated.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. The 'through the official PWS action' phrase is slightly unnecessary, but overall it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and destructive annotation, the description is too thin. It does not explain the preview/create workflow, what a preview returns, how `confirmed` and `preview` interact, or what the actual creation commits. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool confidently.

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 0% and the description adds essentially no parameter meaning. It repeats the 2-10 contract limit already encoded in contractIds, but does not explain the crucial preview, confirmed, name, overview, or startDate parameters, leaving the agent unable to know what values to provide for each.

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 names a specific action ('PREVIEW OR CREATE') and a clear resource ('player-company storyline'), with the meaningful constraint of 2-10 active contracts. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like pws_update_storyline or pws_end_storyline, but the verb 'create' and the resource make basic differentiation clear.

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 when to use the tool: when you want to preview or create a new player-company storyline. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, such as when an existing storyline should be updated or ended, and does not name any alternative tool.

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