Log Payoff (Chekhov Gun)

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'mark' and gives the Chekhov's gun metaphor, but does not explain what happens if the id is invalid, whether it verifies the detail was previously planted, or what the return/response is. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 core purpose with a memorable metaphor. Every word contributes to understanding, and there is no redundancy or 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?

The description combined with the schema is adequate for a simple logging action, but it lacks guidance on how this tool relates to story_log_setup or story_list_unfired, and does not mention failure modes or postconditions. For a tool with no output schema and simple parameters, this is acceptable but not complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters (id, payoff, payoffChapter). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: marking a planted detail (Chekhov's gun) as resolved (payoff). It uses a specific verb ('mark' / 'Đánh dấu') and resource (a planted detail), and the metaphor distinguishes it from sibling tools like story_log_setup (which plants details) and story_list_unfired (which lists unresolved ones).

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 implies when to use the tool (when a setup has paid off) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention story_log_setup for planting or story_list_unfired for checking outstanding setups, relying on the name and metaphorical phrasing to convey context.

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