update_user_story

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical side effect that rewriting acceptance criteria resets their done state — exactly the kind of destructive consequence an agent must know before calling. It still lacks permission/auth requirements, behavior on invalid requirementIds, and whether fields can be cleared.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the patch semantics and the dangerous side effect surfaced immediately after the scope statement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope, patch semantics, and the one destructive side effect. Remaining gaps (error behavior, clearing fields, relationship replacement semantics for requirementIds) are minor but real.

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, and it does map five of the six parameters (persona, goal, benefit, requirementIds as 'linked requirements', acceptanceCriteria) to plain-language meaning. It adds nothing about the required id or the minItems=1 constraint on acceptanceCriteria, so it is helpful but not complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Change a user story's") and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent knows exactly which entity is affected. It implicitly separates itself from sibling tools like add_user_story and update_requirement by naming 'user story' and the story-specific fields (persona, goal, benefit, acceptance criteria). Explicit sibling routing is absent, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

"Only the fields you pass change" is a genuinely useful usage rule for a partial-update tool and tells the agent it need not resend unchanged values. However there is no guidance on when to use this versus set_criterion_status or update_requirement, and no prerequisites are stated.

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