add_user_story

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the required text format and that acceptance criteria are mandatory, but says nothing about whether the story is attached to a project, what is returned (e.g., a new story id), permission requirements, or error behavior for a mutating create 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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and immediately gives the required format. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.

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 6-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core text fields but leaves the linking parameters (projectId, requirementIds) and the return value unexplained. It is minimally sufficient but has visible gaps an agent would notice.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by explaining how persona, goal, and benefit compose into one sentence and that acceptance criteria are part of the payload. It still says nothing about the optional projectId and requirementIds linking parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Create a user story") and even specifies the canonical sentence structure the story must take. It is clearly distinct from update_user_story, delete_user_story, and add_requirement, though it never names those siblings to reinforce the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus add_requirement, update_user_story, or import_requirements. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the format sentence; no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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