lore_story_plan

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds substantial beyond-schema behavior: the existing StorySpine is replaced with no history, review mode returns to pending and blocks later stages, roughly three needs_model rounds must be answered before saving, and validation failure aborts with an error and no save. The only gap is it does not quantify cost/latency of the multi-round model interaction beyond the round count.

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 the core action and artifacts, then ordering, then side effects and return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the dense parentheticals make it read heavier than necessary.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description supplies the return shape {spine (with quality), needsApproval}. Combined with prerequisites, ordering, destructive semantics, multi-round interaction, and failure behavior, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the downstream consequence of mode=review (downstream steps become blocked) and reinforcing the destructive replace semantics, which is not stated in the parameter's own description.

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 and resource (generate the whole-work StorySpine) and enumerates its scope (causal chain, character motivation, mid reinterpretation, cost of the final choice) plus the two artifacts it writes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by name: arc-level planning is lore_arc_plan's job.

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 ordering (after lore_create, before lore_writer_skill), prerequisites (foundation plus an approved StoryProfile), and a named alternative for a different granularity (lore_arc_plan). It also explains the mode=review consequence of blocking downstream steps.

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