add_story_note

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that notes are appended under a '## Notes' section with an ISO 8601 timestamp and returns a specific object. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (state change) and readOnlyHint=false, which align with the write operation. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentences convey purpose, usage, behavior, and return value. No unnecessary words; well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, full parameter documentation, and presence of annotations, the description provides complete context including return type (since no output schema). It covers all necessary aspects.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds extra context: 'can be multi-line' for note, and describes the return value. This supplements the schema without redundancy.

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 ('Append') and resource ('story file') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that update story metadata (e.g., set_story_status, update epics). It clearly states the tool's action and scope.

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 recommends use cases: 'record progress, decisions made, or blockers encountered'. It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or alternatives. Since no other tool appends notes, the guidance is sufficient.

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