recipe_flowTextStory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the side effects (creates frames, links them, adds pages when space runs out) and the reporting behavior (where the story ended, whether it still overflows). It does not state permission/auth requirements or that it mutates the open document, keeping it short of 5.

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 em-dash sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists the composite behaviors; every clause earns its place with zero 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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully explains the return-ish outcome (ending position and overflow status), which compensates for the absent output schema. It leaves document-selection/versioning behavior to the schema but is otherwise complete.

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 100%, so all six parameters (filePath, maxPages, pageIndex, document_id, documentIndex, timeout) are already documented. The description hints at the maxPages overflow-reporting behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (place/flow) and resource (text file as a story across pages), and the composite nature clearly distinguishes it from atomic siblings like text_addFrame, text_linkFrames, and page_add.

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 phrase 'in one call' signals this is the composite one-shot versus doing the create-frame/link-frame/add-page steps individually, giving clear context for when to prefer it. It stops short of naming the atomic alternatives or stating exclusions (e.g. when NOT to use it).

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