create_story

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate slugs, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and key parameter details. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical context like error conditions, response format, or how this tool relates to siblings like 'publish_story', leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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 50% (only the 'story' parameter has a description). The description adds value by listing example fields (name, slug, content, parent_id) and clarifying that 'publish=1' is optional, which helps interpret the schema. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap, especially for the 'story' object's structure and constraints.

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 action ('Create a new story') and resource ('story'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'duplicate_story' or 'create_story_and_add_to_story' (which doesn't exist but similar patterns exist), so it doesn't achieve full distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_story' or 'duplicate_story'. It mentions an optional 'publish=1' parameter but doesn't explain when to use it versus the separate 'publish_story' sibling tool, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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