Draw update story

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so idempotency and non-destructiveness need not be restated. The description adds the partial-update notion ('name or height') but says nothing about behavior if neither field is supplied, invalid heights, or nonexistent IDs.

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 core sentence is a single tight clause with the mutable fields front-loaded. The appended rules tag is terse and occupies little space, though its all-caps rule codes and unquoted id placeholder make it slightly opaque rather than genuinely economical.

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 small mutation tool with full param coverage, no output schema and annotations covering safety, the minimum is met and the return-value burden is low. However, it omits what happens on partial updates or invalid input and leaves the referenced EVAC-001/GEO-002 rules unexplained, so an agent still lacks the operational detail to call it 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 100%, and the schema already documents id, name and height including units ('Story height (m)'). The description merely echoes the two mutable fields, adding no syntax, range, or default information beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 and resource ('Update a story name or height'), so the agent immediately knows it mutates an existing story's name and/or height. It is clearly differentiated from siblings like draw_add_story, draw_remove_story and draw_list_stories by the field list and the 'update' verb, though those siblings are never 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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus draw_add_story or draw_set_wall_params, and no note on prerequisites such as existing story IDs. The bracketed rules line points at EVAC-001/GEO-002 via bulc_knowledge_search with the story id, which is an implied compliance step, but it is cryptic and does not say when to run it or what to do with the result.

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