lore_webtoon_plan

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that mode=auto auto-passes approval gates and overwrites project webtoon/profile.md, that state lives in .vibelore/webtoon/, and that supplying direction/feedback/responses resets subsequent planning. It also surfaces domain-specific error outcomes (needs_format_support waiting state, no silent vertical fallback), which an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 [deprecated] marker and the replacement tool, which is the most important routing signal. The remaining sentences are dense but each carries distinct information (gates, storage path, error states, reset behavior); it is information-rich rather than padded, though the multi-clause sentences are harder to scan than an ideal definition.

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 16-parameter, stateful, deprecated workflow tool with no output schema, the description covers storage location, approval-gate behavior, destructive overwrites, error codes, and reset semantics. The main omission is return/status reporting (e.g. what needs_interview/needs_model responses look like to the caller), but the core call-correctness information is present.

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 adds cross-parameter behavior the schema does not encode, namely that direction/feedback/responses jointly force a return to the interview stage and invalidate downstream plan state. It also reinforces the deprecated workflowId/newWorkflow semantics, though per-field syntax is largely left to the schema.

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 ('진행 중인 컷별 작업의 인터뷰·각색 이어가기 전용') and immediately marks itself as deprecated while naming the replacement sibling lore_webtoon_scene. An agent can distinguish this continuation-only tool from lore_webtoon_scene, lore_webtoon_render, and lore_webtoon_decide without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (continuing in-progress per-cut interview/adaptation), explicit when-not (new work and newWorkflow are rejected with WEBTOON_PANEL_PATH_DEPRECATED), and names the correct alternative for new work. It also specifies the interview/direction-approval/adaptation/storyboard sequence the agent is expected to walk through.

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