pws_update_storyline

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. However, it adds little behavioral depth: it mentions 'PREVIEW OR UPDATE' but does not explain the preview semantics, the need for `confirmed`, or what happens when preview is true versus false. This is a two-phase destructive flow, and the description leaves that largely opaque.

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, direct sentence with the key action front-loaded ('PREVIEW OR UPDATE'). It is concise and readable, though it lacks structured detail. Its brevity does not by itself hurt this dimension, since completeness is scored separately.

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 destructive, five-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It does not explain the preview/confirm workflow, the required identifier, return behavior, or what makes the operation destructive. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool correctly based on the provided text.

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 carry the burden for parameters. It names only `name` and `overview`, which partially explains two fields, but it does not explain the required `storylineId`, the `preview` flag's role, or the `confirmed` flag's role. With five params and no schema descriptions, this is insufficient compensation.

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 ('PREVIEW OR UPDATE') and a specific resource ('the name and overview of a player-company storyline'), which clearly identifies what the tool operates on. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pws_create_storyline and pws_end_storyline, even though those siblings are not named.

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 this tool is for updating an existing storyline's name/overview, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus pws_get_storylines for reading, pws_create_storyline for creating, or pws_end_storyline for ending. It provides no exclusions or alternative routing, so usage guidance is only implied.

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