Update story

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: this is a mutation that overwrites the fields you pass, it uses optimistic concurrency via expected_revision, and summaries are editable context that never replace turns. What is missing is the failure mode on a revision mismatch (error vs. merge) and any permission or size constraints on the mutation.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, mutation semantics front-loaded before the concurrency safeguard and the clarification about summaries. Each sentence conveys a distinct, load-bearing fact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the core mutation contract plus concurrency safety are covered. For a ten-parameter mutation with no annotations, however, the unexplained remove_profiles and summary_branch_id parameters and the silent revision-conflict behavior leave real gaps an agent would hit.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply meaning; it explains expected_revision's purpose and maps 'title, scene setup, character assignments, profiles, summary' onto title, setup, user_role/assistant_role, profiles, and summary. It leaves remove_profiles and summary_branch_id entirely unexplained and gives no format detail for the free-text fields, so half the ten-parameter surface remains opaque.

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?

"Change a story's title, scene setup, character assignments, profiles, or summary" gives a specific verb (change/update) and resource (story) plus an enumeration of the editable surface, which clearly separates it from siblings like delete_story, create_story, or append_turn. It stops short of naming an alternative or a selection rule, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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 implies when to use it (you have an existing story and want to alter its metadata) and gives one concrete operational instruction: pass expected_revision from your last read to avoid clobbering a concurrent edit. It never states when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for adjacent operations such as branching or appending turns, leaving that to inference.

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