Batch Create User Stories

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

The description transparently discloses independent item creation, partial failure behavior, and the return structure ('per-item success/failure'), which are not revealed by annotations. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnly/destructive hints and matches the openWorldHint annotation without contradiction.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and every clause earns its place. It conveys the limit, independence, return type, and technical rationale without redundancy or fluff.

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 essential operational details: the 20-item limit, per-item independence, and the return format. However, with no output schema present, it could be more explicit about the exact structure of per-item results (e.g., error codes, IDs). For a batch tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The description provides zero parameter-level detail; schema description coverage is 0%. It does not explain what 'project' or 'items' mean beyond the schema's property names and types, nor does it clarify subtleties like points role mapping or the required subject field. Given 0% coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaning to the 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 clearly states the verb 'Create', the resource 'user stories', and a specific limit ('up to 20'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling batch tools like batch_create_issues and batch_create_tasks by naming the user story resource.

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 for when to use this tool: when creating multiple user stories at once and needing per-item field support. It explicitly contrasts with native Taiga bulk-create, which lacks per-item fields. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like using user_story_create for single creations or compare to batch_create_issues/tasks, though the context is still clear.

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