gameforge_lock_style_bible

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Lock' implies a persistent mutation, but the description never says whether the lock is reversible, what happens if called twice, or what permissions/state it requires — only that project_id is needed. It does partially compensate by disclosing the computed artifact set (ramps, bounds, checkpoint names), which effectively hints at output content.

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 with the action front-loaded before the colon and the substance enumerated after it — dense but every phrase carries information. It is slightly overstuffed as one clause chain, but there is no filler.

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 16-parameter, 5-required tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the produced artifact, but it omits persistence semantics, return shape, and error behavior (e.g. invalid hex, missing project). Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity and total absence of annotations.

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 88%, with per-field descriptions including defaults, ranges, and enum values, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lock') and resource ('the visual Style Bible for a project'), then enumerates exactly what gets computed: hue-shifted 5-step ramps, outline thickness, shading model, checkpoint/LoRA names, and ControlNet/IP-Adapter/denoise bounds. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like gameforge_audit_asset_consistency or the various generate_*_workflow tools.

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 trailing clause 'so AI passes never drift' explains the benefit but not the trigger condition. There is no statement of when to call this (e.g. before any asset generation), no prerequisite that a project must already exist, and no named alternative or exclusion relative to the sibling audit/workflow tools.

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