Faction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether 'remove' is destructive or reversible, whether updates require an existing faction, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. The territory-room exclusion is useful but does not compensate for the missing mutation/removal semantics.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence establishes the tool's domain, and the second packs both when-to-use and when-not-to-use into a compact, scannable form. Every clause earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with a fully described schema and explicit sibling routing, the description is largely complete: an agent knows the domain, the supported actions, and the key exclusion. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it would benefit from stating whether remove is permanent or whether list returns all factions; the unexplained 'progress clocks' also creates a small gap against 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%, with every one of the 7 parameters already documented inline. The description adds no param-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it. The mention of 'progress clocks' is not tied to any actual parameter, so it adds semantic ambiguity rather than parameter clarity.

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 ('Manage') and resource ('organizations in the active Novel'), then enumerates concrete actions: creating, revising, removing, or listing factions and their progress clocks. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool world by carving out territory-room tracking, making the tool's scope clear.

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?

The description gives explicit 'Use when' conditions covering the supported actions, and an explicit 'Do NOT use when' with a named alternative tool and action (world, action: create_room). This is ideal routing guidance for an agent deciding between siblings.

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