answer_story_question

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the useful behavioral trait that the call returns either the next question or the finished, persisted story, which reveals the multi-turn state machine. It does not say whether answers are saved incrementally, whether a resubmitted answer overwrites a prior one, or what happens with an invalid session_id.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and then the return value, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation in the schema, the description should do more. It covers the happy path and the terminal state well, but leaves session lifecycle, error behavior, and answer-overwrite semantics unaddressed for a stateful two-parameter mutation.

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 both parameters rely on the description. It clarifies that 'answer' is the user's response to the current interview question, which adds meaning beyond the bare string type. It adds nothing about session_id beyond the implicit 'current interview' context, so the coverage gap is only partially compensated.

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 names a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('the user's answer to the current interview question') and states what comes back ('the next one (or the completed, saved story)'). An agent can tell this apart from start_story_interview and save_story by the 'current question' framing, though siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'current interview question' signals this belongs mid-session, after an interview has been started, and the 'next one / completed story' phrasing implies it is called repeatedly until completion. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a pointer to start_story_interview as the prerequisite.

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