create_story

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

The description clearly states it creates a new story with a folder, config.json, and text.md draft, which is a write operation. Annotations already indicate not read-only and not destructive, so no contradiction. However, it doesn't mention idempotency or behavior if the story already exists, leaving some ambiguity. The parenthetical adds useful file structure details beyond the simple purpose, but it doesn't cover failure modes or side effects beyond creating files.

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?

Single sentence, clear verb, specific output. Zero waste, front-loaded with main action.

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?

The description explains the tool's output (folder + config.json + text.md draft) which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention what happens if the story already exists, or any constraints on naming, or the effect of optional parameters. Given there is no output schema and the tool is a creator, some additional behavioral context would be helpful but not strictly required.

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 descriptions cover all 7 parameters (coverage 100%), so the description doesn't need to add per-parameter meaning. The description adds high-level context that it creates a draft, but the schema already covers each parameter's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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 (e.g., import_json, build) or any caveats like

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