Vow Management

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it states the auth requirement (GM or Editor badge), persistence target (the Novel), the recovery path (undoable via manage_history action: undo), and the asymmetry that resolve/forsake are terminal forward-only. The one gap is that 'destructiveHint' is not reconciled — the description never says what milestone/forsake destroy or whether they overwrite prior state, which matters for a destructive tool.

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 action semantics, then auth/undo, then use/don't-use routing — a logical order with no filler sentences. The action-semantics clause is dense enough that a skimming agent could miss the resolve/forsake distinction, keeping it just under a 5.

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?

For a 10-parameter, 5-action mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: permissions, terminality, undo route, action-level effects, and the sibling it must not be confused with. Return values are correctly left to the output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies, and the description earns a bump by tying parameters to actions (name/difficulty/scope/parties for set; outcome/consequences for resolve; reason for forsake) and by disclosing the undocumented default that scope defaults to 'shared'. It still doesn't explain the difficulty→countdown-tick mapping concretely or why both 'name' and 'vow_name' exist.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Track narrative vows, quests, and obligations with milestones') and then enumerates what each action value does — set creates and links a countdown, milestone advances, resolve/forsake close with distinct outcomes. An agent can distinguish this from the many sibling 'manage_*' tools 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?

Explicit 'Use when:' list covers all five actions, and 'Do NOT use when:' names the confusable sibling and the exact alternative call (manage_countdown, action: set) for the timer case. This is the highest tier of routing guidance.

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