Initialize Story Project

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 the key side effect (creating a standard directory tree plus initial metadata). It does not disclose permission requirements, failure behavior on name collisions, or whether existing directories are overwritten — significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the operation and its concrete outputs with no filler. The directory list is high-value detail rather than padding.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what is returned and how errors (e.g., existing project) are handled. It covers the write effects but leaves the response contract and failure modes unspecified.

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% and includes enum values and a documented default (80000) for targetWordCount, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about individual parameters beyond what the schema already states; 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 (khởi tạo/tạo) and resource (dự án tiểu thuyết), and enumerates concrete artifacts created (.story/, bible/, manuscript/, outline/). This clearly separates it from retrieval siblings like story_list_projects and story_get_project_info, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'dự án tiểu thuyết mới' implies first-time setup, which is useful context for choosing this over story_set_project. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no statement about what happens if the project already exists.

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