pws_end_storyline

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Defaults to preview' clarifies that the tool is not destructive by default, and 'Verifies that it became inactive' explains that the tool checks the outcome. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action ('PREVIEW OR END'). Every clause adds value, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

While the description covers the main action, default behavior, and verification, it omits the 'confirmed' parameter semantics and does not describe the return value or response format. With no output schema, this leaves gaps for an agent to understand what to expect when actually ending a storyline.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the preview behavior and its default ('Defaults to preview'), which maps to the 'preview' parameter. However, it does not explain the 'confirmed' parameter, which is crucial for actually ending a storyline (likely a safety confirmation). Thus, it partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's function: 'PREVIEW OR END an active player-company storyline.' It uses a specific verb ('end') and resource ('storyline'), and the preview mode is highlighted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pws_get_storylines or pws_diagnose_storyline_attribution, which are read-only or diagnostic.

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 provides clear context by specifying 'active player-company storyline', indicating this tool is intended for active storylines that need to be ended or previewed for ending. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is unique among siblings, making the intended use clear.

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