Map Character Relationships Graph

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

The description discloses a key side effect: it automatically updates a file at .story/relationships.json. However, it does not clarify whether relationships are appended, overwritten, or deduplicated, nor does it mention any prerequisites or return behavior. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency and falls short.

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 sentence, which is brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified and introduces ambiguity with 'analyze the manuscript'. It is concise in length but not in clarity, so a score of 3 reflects that it is not an effective use of the single sentence.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain what the tool accepts, what it does, and what the user should expect in return. It only mentions updating a file and does not cover the mandatory parameters, the editing flow, or the response format. This is inadequate for a tool with side effects.

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 descriptions for all 5 parameters, including the enum for type. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 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 states it updates the character relationship graph, citing the specific file .story/relationships.json. However, the phrase 'Phân tích bản thảo' (analyze the manuscript) is ambiguous and not reflected in the input schema, which instead expects explicit source, target, and type parameters. This creates confusion about whether the tool analyzes a manuscript or simply records a provided relationship.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like story_extract_entities_to_bible or story_scan_messy_project. The description gives no context about whether it is intended for adding one relationship at a time, batch processing, or analyzing an entire manuscript.

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