st.worldbook.entry.configure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety burden. It discloses mutation ('create/update/enable/disable/delete') and a confirmation gate ('Requires confirm: true'), but it omits side effects, reversibility, or what happens if confirm is absent or false.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the most important operation scope is front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters, a nested fields object, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description adds only the confirmation requirement. It leaves key details like required book, action semantics, and fields structure undocumented, so an agent cannot reliably construct a valid call.

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 the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the role of confirm. The actions map loosely to the action enum, yet fields, enabled, uid, book, and comment are left unexplained, forcing the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 uses a precise verb phrase 'Create, update, enable/disable, or delete' targeting 'a single worldbook entry,' which clearly identifies the resource and operations. It also implicitly distinguishes it from book-level tools like st.worldbook.delete, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 action verbs imply this is the tool for entry-level mutation, and 'single' hints at one entry rather than batch. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over related siblings such as st.worldbook.delete for whole books or st.worldbook.create_empty, leaving exclusion logic mostly to inference.

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