storyline_confirm_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the brief is 'locked' and the storyline is 'advancing to the strategy phase', which are meaningful side effects. However, it doesn't mention whether this is irreversible, who can do it, or what happens to any pre-existing strategy. Some context is given, but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, and ends with a clear next-step instruction. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a simple tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and the next tool in the workflow. It lacks only a note on reversibility or error conditions, but overall it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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%, with both parameters (brandId and storylineId) adequately described. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, relying entirely on the schema, which is the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states the verb+resource: 'Confirm (lock) the brief for a storyline', and specifies the outcome 'advancing it to the strategy phase'. This distinguishes it from siblings like storyline_set_brief or storyline_edit_brief, which handle brief creation/editing rather than locking.

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 explicitly instructs 'After confirmation, call storyline_generate_strategy', providing clear workflow context. It implies this is the transition point from brief to strategy, but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it's not a full 5.

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