mark_story_in_progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that the call only records status, describes the no-op/locked behavior with a specific return shape, and explains that a nonexistent story returns {'ok': False, 'error': ...} instead of raising. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and failure modes.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only high-value operational detail. Every sentence carries meaning: parameter provenance, invocation timing, non-behavior, error semantics, and lock handling. There is no filler.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call, what the side effects are, how to handle lock contention, and what happens for invalid stories. The lock-retry guidance is especially valuable because it prevents a false assumption about success.

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 fully compensate. It explains plan_name as the name returned by list_plans or passed to save_plan/ingest_plan, and story_key as the key within the plan's manifest returned by list_ready_stories or dispatch_story. This is exactly the provenance an agent needs to populate the two required parameters correctly.

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: transition the ticket to In Progress and update the local manifest's story status. It also distinguishes itself from dispatch_story by explicitly pointing out that it does not create a worktree/branch or start an agent, which separates it from nearby sibling tools.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: use it before writing code, call it once right after dispatch_story, and it is also appropriate after manually claiming a story. It does not enumerate alternatives like set_story_status, but the use context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool correctly.

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