lore_arc_plan

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false; the description goes far beyond by stating it unconditionally replaces the current plan (overwriting a pending plan at the same number and replacing an in-progress active arc with a next-numbered arc). It also discloses that status=needs_model will surface roughly three times during generation/quality/language validation, which is critical multi-turn behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then preconditions, then replacement semantics and return shape. Every sentence carries load, though the single dense block is longer than strictly necessary and could be split for scannability.

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?

For a complex, destructive, multi-turn planning tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, side effects, approval flow, expected needs_model cycles, and the return shape {plan(episodes, quality), needsApproval, instruction}. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 all six parameters (mode enum semantics, workId pattern, episodes range, feedback/direction usage). The description adds the unconditional-replacement behavior but no additional per-parameter meaning, so the 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+resource with scope: generates the next arc's promise plus 3-20 episode beats, runs structural/quality validation, and writes .vibelore/arc-plan.json (with per-arc copies in .vibelore/arcs/). This clearly separates it from siblings lore_arc_status, lore_arc_review, and lore_arc_decide.

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?

Gives explicit invocation conditions ('call before lore_write once lore_arc_status confirms no active arc, or when an arc has ended') and an explicit exclusion ('do not call mid-arc'). It also names the required upstream artifacts (foundation, approved StoryProfile/StorySpine/WriterSkill) and references the sibling tool that gates it.

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