update_story

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions updating fields but lacks critical details: whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, if it overwrites or merges fields, error handling, or side effects (e.g., versioning). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Update an existing story') and adds necessary detail about parameters. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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 complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the update behavior, parameter roles, or what to expect upon success/failure. For a mutation tool with rich input schema but zero structured metadata, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'story object with fields to update,' which partially explains the 'story' parameter but ignores 'story_id' (required) and 'publish' (optional with const 1). This leaves key parameters unexplained, failing to bridge the coverage gap.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing story'), making the purpose evident. It specifies that updates require passing a story object with fields to modify. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_asset' or 'update_component', which follow similar patterns.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., story must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot update published stories), or related tools like 'publish_story' or 'duplicate_story'. The description only states what the tool does, not when to apply it.

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