Lore

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

The descriptions do not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint: false implies write operations, which align with creating/revising/removing). However, the description does not add extra context beyond what the annotations already convey, such as side effects or permission requirements. The presence of secret-related actions (set_secret, reveal, secret_list) is not explicitly explained, but the core write behavior is transparent.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences. It efficiently states the purpose and usage boundaries without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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?

The description provides enough context for the tool's core function and when to use it. Given the tool supports multiple actions (set, update, remove, etc.), the description captures the overall scope but doesn't enumerate every action. This is sufficient for a high-level tool definition, especially with a comprehensive 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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It does not go beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the purpose: 'Manage the active Novel's lore entries (world facts the narrator recalls).' It uses a specific verb ('Manage') and resource ('lore entries'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool 'story' by saying 'Do NOT use when: recording a story beat — use story (action: record).'

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 provides explicit usage criteria: 'Use when: creating, revising, removing, toggling, grouping, suggesting, listing, exporting, or importing lore.' It also gives a clear exclusion: 'Do NOT use when: recording a story beat — use story (action: record).' This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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