storyline_generate_strategy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses async behavior, returns { operationId, status }, instructs polling get_job until completed, estimates duration (2–5 min), and indicates post-completion steps. These traits go beyond what any schema could convey.

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 the core action and async nature. Every sentence adds vital information: purpose, return format, polling, time estimate, and follow-up actions. No filler or 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers the operational context: prerequisites (confirmed brief), return value, polling mechanism, expected duration, and downstream actions. It is complete for an async generation task and leaves no critical gaps.

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% (both brandId and storylineId have descriptions). The description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'based on its confirmed brief' which indirectly ties to storylineId. Per the baseline, a 3 is appropriate when schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('strategy and line-items for a storyline'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like storyline_get_strategy (review) and storyline_edit_strategy (edit). It states the action and the required prerequisite (confirmed brief), making the purpose 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?

Explicitly describes when to use this tool: after a brief is confirmed. It also provides a clear workflow: poll get_job, then review with storyline_get_strategy, and optionally edit or modify line items. This directly gives alternatives and next steps, satisfying the 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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