Map user stories from live app

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds behavioral context: it creates two database rows (story_map_run, inventory_proposals), optionally dispatches a Cursor Cloud agent, returns immediately with a pending status, and requires polling get_map_run_status for progress. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise: three sentences cover the core action, side effects, optional refinement, and return value. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action.

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?

The description covers the async nature, progress polling mechanism, side effects (rows created), and optional agent dispatch. It lacks detail on the output format of the inventory draft, but given no output schema, the explanation of return value and polling is sufficient for an agent to understand expected behavior.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions. The optional cursorCloudRefine parameter is mentioned, but the schema already describes it. No new insight is provided.

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: crawl a live app URL, draft an inventory.yaml with pages and user stories, create tracking rows, and optionally dispatch an agent. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like inventory_get or inventory_diff by focusing on generation from live crawl.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (for mapping user stories from a live app) and what it does, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like inventory_get or inventory_findings. However, the intent is clear.

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