add_story_note

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that notes are appended under a '## Notes' section with ISO 8601 timestamps, and mentions the return format. Annotations already indicate it's destructive (destructiveHint: true) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint: false), but the description clarifies the append behavior and timestamping, enhancing understanding without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and behavioral details. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second provides context, and the third explains formatting and returns. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and 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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, destructive operation) and lack of an output schema, the description does well by explaining the return format ({story_id, appended_at, path}) and behavioral details like timestamping. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential errors (e.g., invalid story_id) or side effects, though annotations cover some safety 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents both parameters ('note' and 'story_id'). The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning 'note text' and 'Story ID to annotate', but does not provide additional details like format constraints or examples beyond what the schema already states, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('Append a timestamped note'), the target resource ('to a story file'), and the purpose ('to record progress, decisions made, or blockers encountered'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_story_status' or 'complete_story' by focusing on note-taking rather than status changes or completions.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Use to record progress, decisions made, or blockers encountered'), which helps differentiate it from status-setting or creation tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, such as 'set_acceptance_criteria' for formal requirements.

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