galbook_persona

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: the persona is injected into every subsequent choice prompt, which is meaningful side-effect information. It omits persistence scope (per book? per agent?), what happens on overwrite, and what a show call returns.

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?

One front-loaded clause with no padding; the bilingual "人设" tag is a harmless gloss rather than wasted space. It is arguably too terse for the behavioral depth it hints at, but nothing present is redundant.

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 three-optional-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what showing returns and how persona state is scoped across books and agents. It conveys the core mechanic (persistent persona shown at each choice) but leaves the retrieval shape and scoping undefined.

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 100%, so the schema already documents book, text, and agent, including the "omit to show; empty string to clear" semantics. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented schema.

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?

"Set or show your persona" states a specific verb pair and resource, and the clarification that it is shown at every choice pins down the scope of the effect. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like galbook_profile or galbook_status, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 never says when to set versus when to show, nor how this relates to galbook_profile or the other persona-adjacent siblings. The only usage signal ("shown to you at every choice") is a consequence, not a routing rule, and the set/show switch is only discoverable from the schema's "omit to show".

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