Draw add story

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-and-non-repeatable profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context by flagging that EVAC-001/GEO-002 rules govern this operation and pointing to bulc_knowledge_search, but it says nothing about side effects on existing stories or what the new story inherits.

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 lines, front-loaded with the core action, with no padding. The rule-reference line is terse and somewhat cryptic but does not waste space.

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 zero-parameter mutation with no output schema and descriptive annotations, the definition is minimally adequate: it says what is created. It omits how the new story relates to existing stories (ordering/height defaults) and what the caller should expect back, which an agent would reasonably want before invoking a non-idempotent write.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description's clarification that a 'story' is a floor level is the only semantic annotation needed.

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 and resource: 'Add a new building story (floor level)'. The parenthetical clarifies the domain term 'story', and the verb 'add' cleanly distinguishes it from siblings draw_remove_story, draw_list_stories and draw_update_story. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus draw_update_story or draw_set_wall_params, nor any prerequisite (e.g. whether a project/story must already exist). The only contextual pointer is the cryptic '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-001, GEO-002 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' line, which hints that rules apply but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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