holonovel

Identity Management

manage_identity

Destructive

Manage a roster character's durable identity: stage, accept, reject, or bootstrap candidates, list facets, and snapshot versioned kernels; mutations persist and are audited.

Instructions

Manage a roster character's durable identity: staged candidates, accepted facets, and the versioned compiled kernel. Mutation (stage, accept, reject, bootstrap) persists the roster and is audited; list/snapshot are read-only. accept's perspective defaults to the candidate's stored perspective. Revert the most recent mutation with manage_history (action: undo); the compiled kernel is versioned. Use when: importing or authoring identity material (stage), accepting or rejecting a candidate (accept/reject), seeding from a character card (bootstrap), inspecting candidates and facets (list), or reading the compiled kernel (snapshot). Do NOT use when: recording what a character knows or believes — use manage_belief; editing narrative personality — use manage_character (action: personality).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`card`	No	Character-card fields to stage (bootstrap).
`facet`	No	Identity facet key, e.g. name or calling (stage).
`value`	No	Identity facet value (stage).
`action`	Yes	stage, accept, reject, list, snapshot, or bootstrap.
`source`	No	Provenance label for the candidate (stage; default manual).
`stability`	No	structural, constitutional, core, or developmental (stage; default core).
`perspective`	No	self, biographical, public_reputation, secret, or unknown (stage/accept; default self).
`candidate_id`	No	Identity candidate id (accept/reject).
`character_id`	Yes	Roster character id.

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds value beyond them: mutations persist the roster and are audited, list/snapshot are read-only, and the most recent mutation is revertible via manage_history (action: undo) with a versioned compiled kernel. It does not spell out precisely what a reject/overwrite destroys, if anything, which is the only remaining gap.

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 the core semantics (what it manages, which actions mutate), then usage routing, then exclusions. Some redundancy in restating the action list twice, but every sentence carries routing or behavioral information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 9-parameter, multi-action, nested-object tool with an output schema already present, the description covers the safety profile, persistence/audit behavior, undo path, and per-action routing. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing, and return values are appropriately left to the output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema doesn't: accept's perspective defaults to the candidate's stored perspective, and it groups parameters by the action that consumes them (stage vs accept/reject). This helps an agent pick the right action-parameter combination.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific verb (manage) and resource (a roster character's durable identity), then enumerates the concrete sub-operations (stage, accept, reject, bootstrap, list, snapshot). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools manage_belief and manage_character, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

It contains explicit 'Use when' clauses mapping each action to a scenario (importing/authoring, accepting/rejecting, seeding from a card, inspecting, reading the kernel) and explicit 'Do NOT use when' clauses naming the alternative tools (manage_belief for knowledge/beliefs, manage_character action: personality for narrative personality). This is the full when/when-not/alternatives triad.

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