lore_webtoon_scene

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

Annotations only declare the mutation safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds far more: the server never calls the image API, the host must execute the OpenAI request and return it as an asset, state lives in .vibelore/webtoon/ and novel canon plus the project webtoon/ folder are untouched, and existing per-cut workflows are preserved.

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?

Long but densely packed and front-loaded with the core purpose before branching into checkpoints, state location, and error paths. For a 16-parameter workflow tool nearly every clause carries actionable information, though a few state/error details could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema and 16 parameters, the description carries the necessary burden: it describes the checkpoint protocol, the needs_* signals in both directions, error codes (WEBTOON_WORKFLOW_ACTIVE), the completion condition (status=completed), and side-effect boundaries. An agent has enough 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds flow-level meaning that the schema does not: the confirmImageChoice/feedback round-trip for billing approval, the reuse of an approved choice, and the autoRevisions redesign loop that emits new image requests and records failures in attempts.

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 and resource (creates one image from a single novel scene, with dialogue in the work's original language) and lays out the full pipeline (원작→연출→검증→장면 이미지→시각 검토). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings lore_webtoon_plan and lore_webtoon_render by naming its exact scope and the discovery interview that must precede it.

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 and prerequisites: webtoon-discovery-interview must fix scope, style, references, panel count and image model first. It names alternative actions for a blocked state (revise/retry when start returns WEBTOON_WORKFLOW_ACTIVE) and routes model stages to lore_resume and missing panel count to needs_interview.

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