lore_webtoon_decide

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

Annotations only say it is destructive and non-idempotent; the description goes much further, disclosing that approve writes/overwrites the project webtoon directory (profile.md, episodes/, references/) and publishes, that a downstream stage may return needs_model, that hold only records, and that reject terminates the workflow. It also states past approvals become unusable when the final file changes.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded: deprecation and purpose lead, then per-action outcomes, then the precondition. The action/outcome sentences each carry weight, though the approval-ID discussion is somewhat compressed.

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 an 8-parameter destructive tool with a nested revisionTarget object and no output schema, the description covers outcomes, next-step routing, and the user-decision precondition well. It could still clarify the return payload shape and the STALE error conditions, which currently live only in the schema.

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 action enum, feedback, revision, approvalId and revisionTarget semantics are already documented. The description's per-action notes (hold/reject) largely restate what the schema says, adding only marginal cross-parameter context, 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: it resolves approval decisions for an in-progress per-cut webtoon workflow, and it names the sibling to use afterward (lore_webtoon_scene). The '[deprecated]' prefix muddies whether an agent should still call it, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It gives a precondition ('사용자 결정을 받은 뒤에만 호출한다') and a routing rule for after reject ('이후 작업은 lore_webtoon_scene으로 한다'). It does not contrast against the other *_decide siblings (lore_story_decide, lore_arc_decide, lore_writer_decide), so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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