Lore

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 explains the scope and general purpose of lore, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, output behavior, or the behavior of destructive actions like 'remove' or 'import'. It also omits several actions present in the schema, such as reveal, knowledge, and secret operations, leaving those behaviors unexplained.

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 only two sentences, with the core definition front-loaded and no filler. The use-when and do-not-use guidance is compact and immediately actionable. Every sentence 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 tool with 13 parameters and no output schema or annotations, more context would be valuable. The description clearly defines lore and provides a use-case boundary against 'story', but it does not explain the behaviors of lesser-known actions like reveal, knowledge, secret operations, or what import modes imply. It is adequate for selection but not fully complete for confident invocation of every action.

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?

All 13 parameters have descriptions in the input schema, so the description does not need to repeat param-level meaning. The tool description adds little beyond what the schema already says, but with 100% schema 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 names a specific verb ('Manage'), a specific resource ('the active Novel's lore entries'), and clarifies what lore is ('world facts the narrator recalls'). It also distinguishes itself from a close sibling by saying the story-beat case should use 'story (action: record)', which helps an agent understand exactly what this tool is for.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool: 'creating, revising, removing, toggling, grouping, suggesting, listing, exporting, or importing lore.' It also provides a clear exclusion: 'Do NOT use when: recording a story beat — use story (action: record).' This gives an agent direct routing guidance rather than leaving the decision to inference.

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