Extract Entities to Bible

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: it can either propose entities or automatically create files in the bible/ folder, depending on the confirm flag. It also specifies the output format (Markdown with YAML frontmatter), which is valuable. It does not mention potential overwrites or file system prerequisites, but the primary behavior is transparent.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Analyze chapter text') and packs in all essential details (entities detected, two modes, output location, format). There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the agent can expect as a result. It says 'create suggestions' but does not specify the return format (e.g., a list, a status, or file paths). It also omits any prerequisites like the existence of the bible/ folder. For a moderate-complexity tool, this is a noticeable gap.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters (arc, chapter, confirm) with descriptions, including the purpose of confirm (false=preview, true=write). The tool description adds overall workflow context but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 specifies the tool's function: analyzing chapter text to detect characters and places, then creating suggestions or Markdown files in bible/ with YAML frontmatter. This distinct action differentiates it from sibling tools like story_map_relationships or story_auto_refactor_structure.

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 clear context: it is used for analyzing chapter text and extracting entities. It also indicates two modes (preview vs. auto-create) via the confirm parameter, giving clear guidance on when to use each. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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