Adventure Management

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

Annotations already flag the tool as non-read-only and destructive, but the description adds important context beyond them: generate writes scaffolds into a target store, generate_encounter writes one encounter, writes persist and appear in the audit log, and the most recent write is undoable via manage_history. It also clarifies that load and list are read-only, which materially distinguishes action behavior.

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 definition is dense but front-loaded: it starts with the action modes, then side effects, then usage boundaries. Most sentences earn their place, though the parenthetical about the guard and the phrase 'both persist to the Novel' make some parts tighter and less immediately clear than they could be.

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 four-action tool with six parameters, the description explains the main action modes, write side effects, audit/undo behavior, and when to use an alternative. Output values need not be explained because an output schema exists, but the target/codex/both semantics are slightly muddied by the statement that 'both persist to the Novel'.

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, but the description adds action-level meaning: target defaults to novel, a !force prefix bypasses the guard, list accepts an optional genre filter, and slug is for load. It does not fully restate premise/context semantics, but those are covered by 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 specific verbs and resources: generate, load, and list adventure content, with generate_encounter explicitly called out as a distinct action. It also distinguishes the tool from manage_story for recording story beats, so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

It gives explicit positive usage guidance ('Use when: the GM wants...') and an explicit exclusion ('Do NOT use when: recording a story beat — use manage_story'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure that helps tool selection.

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