save_story_decomposition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Saves the decomposition analysis,' which is essentially a restatement of the tool's purpose. It does not disclose whether saving overwrites existing data, requires authentication, or has side effects, which is critical for a mutation/save operation.

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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and then immediately provide usage guidance. No redundant or filler content.

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 rich schema (nested analysis object with many fields), the description does not need to enumerate parameters. It provides the key contextual cue about when to call (after intelligent_decompose_story) and what the analysis should include ('real file paths and dependencies'). However, it lacks any note about return values or what happens after saving, but the schema and tool name carry enough weight.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context by mentioning 'real file paths and dependencies,' which hints at the analysis content, but it does not explain individual parameters. The schema itself documents the parameters sufficiently, so the description provides only marginal added meaning.

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 function: 'Saves the decomposition analysis performed by Claude Code after exploring the codebase.' The verb 'saves' and resource 'decomposition analysis' are specific and unambiguous, and it differentiates from siblings like intelligent_decompose_story and save_task_analysis by focusing on the post-analysis save step.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this after intelligent_decompose_story once you've analyzed the codebase and created the task breakdown with real file paths and dependencies.' This gives a clear usage context, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the preceding tool.

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