holonovel

Combat Encounter Management

manage_combat

Destructive

Start, advance, or end combat encounters in the active Novel and add or remove participants; read status without changing state. Mutating actions persist and are audited.

Instructions

Manage combat encounters in the active Novel. Mutating actions persist to the Novel and are audited; read-only actions do not mutate state. Revert the most recent mutation with manage_history (action: undo). init's seed only reorders the danger set; participants keep their given order. Use when: starting, advancing, ending a fight, or changing its participants. Do NOT use when: applying a status effect — use manage_condition (action: apply).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`seed`	No	Optional deterministic seed (init).
`action`	Yes	init, advance, end, add_participant, remove_participant, or status.
`dangers`	No	Optional non-entity combatants (init).
`outcome`	No	Optional text describing how combat ended (end).
`participants`	No	Entity identifiers participating (init).
`participant_id`	No	Entity identifier (add_participant/remove_participant).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	No	Human-readable text envelope mirroring the structured result (REQ-001, REQ-548a).
`status`	Yes	Machine-readable result status: OK, NEED_INPUT, WARNING, PARTIAL, or an error category (REQ-002, REQ-548c).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.3Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare mutating, destructive, non-idempotent behavior; the description adds that mutations persist and are audited, and points to manage_history for undo. It also clarifies init seed semantics. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail all side effects (e.g., what data is lost on end).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance and caveats. Sentences are dense but each earns its place; no obvious filler, though it could be slightly tighter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, multiple actions, destructive mutations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers key operational context: audit trail, undo path, seed semantics, and action scope. It leaves minor gaps like all action prerequisites or full side effects, but is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds behavioral nuance for seed and participant order but does not elaborate on outcome or participant_id beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states a clear verb+resource ('Manage combat encounters in the active Novel') and mentions the mutating vs read-only distinction. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling manage_condition beyond a do-not-use note, which is helpful but partial.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly lists when to use ('starting, advancing, ending a fight, or changing its participants') and when NOT to use ('applying a status effect — use manage_condition (action: apply)'). Names the alternative tool directly.

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