create_story

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the ID assignment system ('next STORY-NNN ID'), file writing locations, registration in specific markdown files, backlog placement ('appended to the end'), and return values. While annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent write operation, the description provides implementation details that help the agent understand the tool's effects.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains the creation process and side effects, the second states the return values. Every element serves a purpose with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded about what the tool actually does.

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 creation tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides good context about the creation process, file system impacts, and return values. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return structure format. The description compensates well but doesn't fully bridge the output information gap.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value. It doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 ('Create a new story'), the resource ('under an existing epic'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning the ID assignment, file writing, and registration in specific files. It goes beyond just restating the name to explain the full creation process.

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 by specifying 'under an existing epic' and mentioning the epic must already exist (implied from input schema). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_epic' or 'add_story_note', nor does it provide exclusion criteria for when not to use it.

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