Modify stories

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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent, non-read-only. The description adds real value beyond that: patches applied in order, cascading movement of elements with their home story, wall/column height changes, and crucially atomicity ('a failed patch is reverted'). It stops short of permissions or limits, but the cascade and revert details are substantive.

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-loaded with the core verb and then the ordered patch list. The prose is dense with parentheticals but every clause carries behavioral information; no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fills that gap by documenting the return shape (results per patch plus all stories) and the revert-on-failure guarantee. Given the nested patch complexity, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke safely.

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% and field descriptions are already rich, so the schema carries most of the load (baseline 3). The description adds ordering semantics for the patches and the level/height interaction, which the schema states per-field but not as a sequence.

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 and resource ('Changes existing stories') and enumerates exactly which mutations it performs (rename, level, height, show on sections). This cleanly separates it from the create/delete/get stories siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied by the detailed patch semantics, but there is no explicit routing guidance such as when to prefer create_stories or delete_stories, or prerequisites. 'Only the given fields change' hints at partial-update intent but doesn't name an alternative.

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