Create stories

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

Annotations only cover read-only/destructive/idempotent hints; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that inserts shift indexes but floorId stays stable, that the caller should re-read indexes from the returned 'stories', that changes bypass Archicad's undo, and that a failed item is reverted by the add-on. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a mutation 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then layers defaults, ordering rules, index caveats, and return shape in a logical sequence. It is dense and long, with several parenthetical asides, but nearly every clause carries operational information.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers ordering semantics, defaults, index instability, undo bypass, failure rollback, and the return shape. Nothing further is needed for an agent to call it 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 schema already documents name/level/height/position/relativeTo/showOnSections thoroughly and baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the stack-up ordering of repeated 'Top' items and by supplying a concrete example payload.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inserts') and resource ('new stories'), and maps directly to the Archicad UI action (Story Settings > Insert Above/Below). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling story tools (get_stories, modify_stories, delete_stories).

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?

Explains ordering semantics ('items are applied in order', multiple 'Top' items stack upwards) and the default behavior, which helps an agent reason about invocation. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over modify_stories or delete_stories, so alternative-selection guidance is absent.

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