goalstory_update_scheduled_story

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions updating configuration but doesn't describe what happens during the update (e.g., whether changes are immediate, reversible, or require specific permissions). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and potential side 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words but could be slightly more structured by separating the 'what' from examples. Overall, it's appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the update operation returns, error conditions, or behavioral implications. Given the complexity (3 parameters including nested objects) and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context about the tool's effects and outcomes.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'time' and 'status' as updatable fields, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when the 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 action ('Update') and resource ('configuration of a scheduled story generation'), with specific examples of what can be changed ('time or its status'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'goalstory_update_goal' or 'goalstory_update_step', which could lead to confusion about when to use each update operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing scheduled story), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'goalstory_create_scheduled_story' or 'goalstory_destroy_scheduled_story'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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