lore_create

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the non-overwrite refusal policy, the unapproved-StoryProfile refusal, the multi-pass validation loop returning status=needs_model that must be continued via lore_resume, and the all-or-nothing atomicity ('모두 끝나기 전에는 아무 파일도 저장하지 않는다'). This is precisely the kind of behavioral context structured fields cannot convey.

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-loads the core action, then sequencing/refusal conditions, then return shape and next step. Dense but nearly every clause carries operational information; the only mild cost is length, which is justified by the multi-agent handshake flow it documents.

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 10-parameter creating tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return payload fields ({created, genre, language, length, worldFacts, characters, entities}), the multi-resume workflow, abort/refusal conditions, and the explicit next step (lore_story_plan). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 already 100%, so the schema documents all 10 parameters with format and defaults. The description echoes a few of these (genre only needed without StoryProfile, length fallback behavior) but adds no new syntax, constraints, or semantics beyond what the schema already 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 concrete verb and resource ('새 작품의 기반을 모델이 자동 설계한다') plus exactly what artifacts it produces (world facts, 3-5 cast, entities saved to world/setting.md and .vibelore/). It explicitly differentiates itself from lore_init ('직접 쓴 설정으로 시작하려면 lore_init을 쓴다'), so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 the canonical call sequence (lore_profile → lore_profile_decide(approve) → this tool), the fallback path (callable with genre only when StoryProfile is absent), and names the alternative lore_init for hand-written settings. It also specifies refusal conditions (existing foundation, unapproved StoryProfile), which is exactly the when-not guidance needed.

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