Story Journal Management

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description reinforces this by separating mutating actions ('persist to the Novel and are audited') from read-only ones, and discloses the revert path via manage_history undo. It stops short of saying what remove actually destroys or whether edits are recoverable beyond the last mutation, so it adds context but leaves a gap.

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 purpose, then behavior, then usage rules — a sensible ordering with no filler. It is dense (six stacked clauses) but every clause carries actionable information; only the audit/persist detail is slightly incidental.

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, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers domain, mutation risk, undo routing, and the promote/key interaction; the only unaddressed area is pagination behavior for list, which the schema covers at the parameter level.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema does not: 'promote uses index and writes lore under key (default derived)', clarifying cross-parameter interaction and the default. Other params (filter, limit, offset, entry) are left to the schema.

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 verb+resource ('Manage the story journal') and immediately qualifies the resource as typed narrative memories with the five enum types, so the agent knows exactly what domain this covers. It also names the sibling it is not (manage_lore) and the adjacent history tool, making it distinguishable from the ~30 sibling manage_* tools.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('recording, editing, removing, listing, or promoting story beats') and explicit when-not with the correct alternative ('recording a durable world fact — use manage_lore (action: set)'). It also routes the undo path to manage_history, which is a genuine alternative-selection rule.

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