etabs_set_stories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint (the no-objects precondition), comparable in weight to a scoping note, but says nothing about whether the existing story table is fully replaced or what happens on rejected calls.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the precondition immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the key failure precondition is stated. However, for a mutation that replaces the story table with an array of nested story objects, the absence of any parameter-level guidance leaves the agent guessing about inputs.

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 only 50% — base_elevation and several StoryInput fields (name, is_master, splice_above, splice_height) carry no descriptions, and the tool description does not compensate for any of them. "Affected stories" loosely maps to stories_bottom_up but adds no format, ordering, or elevation guidance.

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?

"Redefine the story table" gives a specific verb (redefine/set) and resource (story table), clearly distinguishable from the read-only sibling etabs_get_stories. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the action is unambiguous.

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 supplies a concrete precondition — the model must have no objects on the affected stories — which effectively tells the agent when the call will fail. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or workflow (e.g., delete objects first, or use get_stories to inspect), so it is context without explicit routing.

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