lore_arc_decide

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: no model calls, exact return shape {approved, plan, instruction?}, the ARC_NOT_ACTIVE failure when no arc is active, and the STALE_VALIDATION_RECEIPT/status=clean_fail behavior when a new chapter was published after generation. Annotations only cover safety/idempotency, so this extra failure-mode disclosure is real value.

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?

Five tight sentences front-load the core action, then prerequisites, then failure modes, then return shape. No filler or restatement of the name; every sentence carries distinct operational information.

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 present, the description supplies the return contract and all the failure states (ARC_NOT_ACTIVE, clean_fail) an agent needs to interpret outcomes. Nothing required to invoke or react to this tool is missing.

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 the schema already documents action, workId, and project fully, including the enum meanings and the feedback-loop guidance. The description adds outcome semantics (clean_fail) but no per-parameter syntax beyond what the schema provides, so 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 pair (승인/거절) and resource (아크 계획), and names its producer sibling lore_arc_plan so the agent knows where the input comes from. It is clearly distinguishable from the other *_decide siblings by the arc-specific scope.

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?

Explicitly says to call it after the user has reviewed the plan and decided, states the downstream condition (an active arc is required for lore_write), and gives the reject path's next step: re-call lore_arc_plan with feedback. Both when-to-use and what-to-do-instead are covered.

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