create_story

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: prerequisite validation (epic must exist), a non-blocking warning behavior for missing ADRs, a hard validation constraint ('Each ADR must exist and belong to the same epic'), and the post-creation contract to pause for user agreement. This goes well beyond the generic 'Create a Story' phrase.

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?

Three tight paragraphs with no filler; each sentence carries operational value and the core purpose is front-loaded. The final paragraph is more agent-workflow instruction than tool description, but it earns its place by preventing premature task creation. Slightly long, but justified for the tool's workflow 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers prerequisites, validation, parameter semantics for the most complex param, and follow-up workflow. Remaining gaps: the meaning of `what` and `definition_of_done`, and no explicit contrast with create_spike for when a spike is the right artifact instead of a story.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains adr_ids well (purpose plus existence/same-epic validation) and lightly covers epic_id and acceptance_criteria. However, the required `what` parameter and optional `definition_of_done` are completely unexplained, leaving an agent to guess their content.

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 opening sentence, 'Create a Story under an epic — a deliverable with acceptance criteria,' states a specific verb plus resource and defines what a Story is. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like plan_epic, create_task, and create_spike with minimal effort.

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 gives explicit routing: 'if one hasn't been created yet, call plan_epic first.' It also discloses the conditional when ADRs are missing ('the story is still created') and the required follow-up workflow (present plan, wait for agreement before creating tasks). An agent knows exactly when and in what sequence to call this tool.

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