Log Setup (Chekhov Gun)

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'mark' without disclosing side effects, persistence, prerequisites, or reversibility. As a state-changing operation, this leaves too much ambiguity.

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 one concise, well-structured sentence with a clarifying dash. It is front-loaded with the action and uses no filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks context about how setups integrate with the broader project workflow (e.g., listing unfired setups) and what the operation returns, leaving gaps for an agent.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, matching the baseline score of 3.

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 specific verb ('Đánh dấu' / mark) and resource ('chi tiết cài cắm mới' / new planted detail), and explicitly ties it to Chekhov's Gun needing a future payoff. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like story_log_payoff and story_log_plot_hole.

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: use this tool when introducing a setup that will require a payoff later. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclusions, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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