goalstory_create_story

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'saves' the story (implying a write operation) and uses 'user discussion and profile data' for context, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, whether the story is editable, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 states the core purpose, and the second adds context-gathering behavior. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundancy. However, the second sentence could be slightly more concise by integrating context gathering into the first.

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 complexity (a mutation with 4 required parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and context gathering but misses details like return values, error handling, or side effects. For a tool that creates and saves data, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 all four parameters (goal_id, step_id, title, story_text) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Generate and save a highly personalized story that visualizes achievement of the current goal/step.' It specifies the action (generate and save) and resource (story for goal/step), distinguishing it from siblings like goalstory_read_stories or goalstory_destroy_scheduled_story. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from goalstory_create_scheduled_story, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 implies usage context: 'If context is needed, gathers it through user discussion and profile data,' suggesting it's used when personalized visualization is required. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like goalstory_create_scheduled_story or goalstory_get_story_context, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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