storyline_set_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states the operation is a full replacement ('replace the full brief') and introduces the expectedVersion parameter for optimistic concurrency, explaining that 0 is used when setting from scratch. It also discloses that confirmation is a separate step, preventing the agent from assuming this tool triggers strategy generation. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a mutating tool.

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?

Three sentences precisely deliver purpose, usage, and workflow. The first sentence front-loads the primary action, the second provides parameter guidance, and the third gives the next step. No wasted words 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?

For a complex tool with a nested brief object and concurrency control, the description covers the core workflow: replacing the brief, passing the complete object, using expectedVersion, and following up with storyline_confirm_brief. It lacks an explicit mention of return values or error conditions, but given the absence of an output schema and the detailed schema, this is a reasonable trade-off.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds 'complete brief object' reinforcing that the entire brief must be passed, and reiterates the expectedVersion semantics already in the schema. Beyond that, it does not deeply expand on parameters because the schema already provides detailed descriptions for the nested brief structure and concurrency version.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Manually set (replace) the full brief for a storyline.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like storyline_edit_brief or storyline_update by emphasizing full replacement. It also provides concrete use cases ('provide a human-authored brief or to push back an edited version retrieved via storyline_get'), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear usage context: use when you have a complete human-authored brief or when pushing back an edited version from storyline_get. It also instructs to call storyline_confirm_brief afterward, defining the next step. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like storyline_edit_brief for partial updates, so exclusion guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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