Faction Management

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds materially: mutating actions persist to the Novel and are audited, read-only actions do not mutate state, and the most recent mutation is revertible via manage_history. What's missing is any statement of permission/auth requirements or confirmation semantics for destructive removes.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler: scope first, then mutation/audit behavior plus the undo path, then the use/don't-use routing. Every clause earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description covers scope, mutation semantics, audit/persistence, revert path, and the sibling-boundary exclusion, leaving nothing an agent needs to select or invoke the tool correctly.

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% across all 7 parameters, including the action enum, so the schema carries parameter meaning and the baseline is 3. The description adds only indirect hints (factions and 'their progress clocks'), and notably 'progress clocks' is not represented in any parameter, so it does not extend parameter understanding.

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?

States a specific resource (factions/organizations in the active Novel) and enumerates the concrete operations via the 'Use when' clause (creating, revising, removing, listing factions and their progress clocks). It distinguishes itself from sibling manage_world explicitly, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Provides both inclusion ('Use when: creating, revising, removing, or listing factions') and exclusion ('Do NOT use when: tracking a faction's territory rooms — use manage_world (action: create_room)'), naming the alternative tool and action. It even routes undo operations to manage_history (action: undo), which is explicit alternative guidance.

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