storyline_add_line_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose side effects, permissions, return value, or that this mutates the storyline's strategy. The field list and config tip don't cover behavioral impact, similar to the TDQS 2.9 example.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every phrase earns its place. The config guidance is practical and concise without redundancy.

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?

With 9 params, a nested config object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't mention preconditions (e.g., storyline must exist), return behavior, or how to obtain storylineId, though it does provide useful context about strategy ownership.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats some param names (channel, type, title, description, config) and the 'pass {}' tip mirrors the schema's config description, adding little beyond the structured data.

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 a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('new line item (deliverable) to a storyline's strategy'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like storyline_update_line_item and storyline_delete_line_item. The relationship to strategy is explicit.

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 word 'new' explicitly indicates this tool is for creating line items, not updating or deleting them, providing clear context. However, it doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, leaving a slight gap.

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