patch_story

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers rich context: the 60s advance_all_plans tick race, the shared _plan_lock, atomicity with the scheduler and dispatch_story, and the consequence of hand-editing. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot get from schema or annotations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and field list, followed by the concurrency rationale. Efficient overall, though the field enumeration is dense and could be tightened; nothing is wasted.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a nested-object mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the exact editable fields, the excluded field, and the concurrency semantics — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by enumerating the allowed keys inside the free-form `fields` object (agent_instructions, model, persona, risk, dependencies, acceptance, pr_url, summary, tdd_split, backend) and explicitly excluding `files`. Parameters plan_name and story_key remain undocumented but are self-evident from context.

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 (patch/edit) and resource (a story's plan-authored fields) and enumerates the exact editable fields. It also names the sibling set_story_status for status transitions and ingest_plan for file list changes, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without reading schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (patch plan-authored fields without hand-editing JSON) and when not to (status transitions go through set_story_status; files are not patchable, use ingest_plan instead). Alternatives are named with the condition that selects each.

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