create_story

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

The description adds a key behavioral requirement beyond the annotations: 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'. Since readOnlyHint=false already indicates a write operation, this prerequisite supplies additional context about the environment needed for success. It does not contradict any annotations and provides useful operational detail.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and a key requirement. Every word is essential, with no filler or redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 simple create tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the core purpose and a critical prerequisite. While it does not describe return values or additional behavioral details, these are not essential given the schema and annotations. A slightly richer description could mention what happens on success, but it is not a significant gap.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all 6 parameters, covering 100% of them. The description itself does not add any parameter-level details, so the schema carries the full burden. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description adds no extra parameter semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the exact resource 'agile story/user story'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_epic, create_scrum_task, and create_story_dependency, which operate on different resource types. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for creating stories, implying it is the appropriate choice for that task. It also states a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true), which helps the agent decide if it can use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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