storyline_update_line_item

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 this is a partial update ('Pass only the fields to change'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, return format, or error scenarios, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence that quickly states the action, resource, and key usage instruction. Every word is informative, and there is no redundancy or clutter.

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 straightforward update tool with 8 parameters fully documented in the schema, the description covers the core functionality and the crucial partial-update behavior. It lacks an explicit return-value description, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. The sibling context reinforces its role, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 minimal semantic value by mapping 'select/deselect' to the selected param and listing config, title, description, targetDate, but it does not explain the brandId param or the structure of config beyond what the schema already provides. It does clarify that only provided fields are changed.

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 ('Update') and resource ('line item on a storyline') and lists the exact fields (select/deselect, retitle, change description, targetDate, config). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like storyline_add_line_item, storyline_delete_line_item, and storyline_regenerate_line_item, which handle different operations on the same resource.

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 by listing the editable fields and instructing 'Pass only the fields to change,' implying partial update semantics. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough given the sibling names and the resource-specific action.

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