Novel Save Management

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotence, so the safety profile is largely covered; the description adds real value on top by stating that mutating actions persist and are audited while read-only actions do not mutate state, and that import defaults to dry-run with strict escalating a reference mismatch to a hard block. It stops short of saying what specifically is destroyed or how branching/clone interact with the source Novel.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation list, then behavior, then the when/when-not routing, in four tight sentences with no filler. Size is justified for a 21-action multiplexed tool, and the action enumeration is compressed to a single clause rather than a bulleted expansion of the schema enum.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still covers mutation/audit semantics, the undo path, import safety modes, and scope exclusions. It is slightly thin on the checkpoint family, which is collapsed into the single word 'checkpoint' even though the schema exposes four distinct checkpoint actions.

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 per-parameter 'which action uses this' annotations already carry most semantic load and the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by disambiguating two behavioral parameters: import defaults mode to dry-run, and strict converts a reference-validation failure into a hard block.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Manage Novel save files') and then enumerates the concrete lifecycle, interchange, branching, and checkpoint operations, so an agent knows this is the save-file lifecycle tool rather than a content tool. It also explicitly names the sibling entity tools it is not, letting an agent separate it from manage_npc/manage_lore 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?

Contains explicit 'Use when: handling a campaign's lifecycle, interchange, return points, or branching a timeline' and 'Do NOT use when: managing content inside the Novel', naming six concrete alternative tools. It additionally routes undo to manage_history (action: undo), giving a clear when-to-use path for reversal.

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