Log Plot Hole

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that a new entry is created ('mới'), indicating an append operation, but it omits other traits like duplicate handling, authorization needs, or return format. For a write operation, this provides only minimal transparency.

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 action and object, with no unnecessary words. It earns its place completely.

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 and no annotations, so the description is the only source of contextual information. While the simple logging purpose and rich schema parameter descriptions partially compensate, the description does not mention expected return values or side effects, leaving a moderate gap in completeness.

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 provides descriptions for all four parameters (title, chapters, severity with enum and default, and description), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already contains, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Ghi nhận' (record/log) and identifies the resource as 'điểm mâu thuẫn hoặc lỗ hổng cốt truyện' (contradiction or plot hole) with a destination 'hệ thống theo dõi' (tracking system). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like story_resolve_plot_hole, which handles resolution rather than creation.

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 clearly implies this tool is for recording new plot holes, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as story_resolve_plot_hole or story_log_setup, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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