Create User Story for Idea

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

Annotations declare a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the agent knows this mutates state and is non-idempotent. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on whether the parent idea must exist, what happens on duplicate stories, or what the response returns. Given annotations carry the safety profile, this remains a thin disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, which is good, but the args list largely duplicates the schema. It is not wasteful enough to penalize heavily, yet it doesn't earn its lines by adding 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?

A create tool with no output schema and no mutation-behavior details. The essential calling information (required params, formats) is present via the schema, but the description omits return shape, error conditions, and sibling disambiguation. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the story-format example. The description restates the parameters and repeats the example verbatim, adding no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new user story for an idea.' The relationship to the parent idea (via id) is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish these idea-scoped stories from the sibling prodpad_create_userstory, leaving some ambiguity about which creation tool to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance. With both prodpad_create_userstory and prodpad_create_idea_userstory as siblings, the description never explains when this idea-scoped variant is the right choice versus the generic one. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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