Lore Management

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, the description adds useful context: mutating actions persist and are audited, read-only actions do not mutate state, and import defaults to dry-run unless merge or replace is chosen. It also explains that the most recent mutation can be reverted via manage_history. The description could go further by detailing specific destructive consequences or permission requirements, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and behavioral traits, then structured with clear 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' sections. The list of actions in the usage section is somewhat long but each item aids routing, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or schema. It is appropriately sized for a multi-action tool with many siblings.

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?

Given 13 parameters, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description provides sufficient context: it explains purpose, distinguishes from siblings, clarifies mutating versus read-only behavior, notes the audit and import defaults, and points to manage_history for undo. No additional return-value or parameter documentation is needed because the schema and output schema handle those details.

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. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that import defaults to dry-run mode and that merge or replace performs writes, which clarifies the mode parameter's default behavior. It also groups actions into mutating versus read-only categories, helping the agent interpret the action parameter without listing every enum value.

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 a specific verb and resource: managing the active Novel's lore entries — shared, durable world facts. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming manage_story, manage_belief, and manage_perception as alternatives for related but different tasks. An agent can identify exactly what this tool does 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?

The description provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' sections, listing concrete actions (creating, revising, removing, etc.) and naming the correct alternatives for story beats, beliefs, and perceptions. It also directs the agent to manage_history for undo and notes the import default mode. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool versus its siblings.

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