Vow Management

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly known. The description adds genuinely new context: mutating actions persist to the Novel and are audited, read-only actions do not mutate state, and the most recent mutation is reversible via manage_history. It stops short of noting irreversibility limits or auth requirements, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then mutation semantics, then undo path, then when/when-not. Every sentence carries operational value, though the compound final clauses are slightly packed and could be split for readability.

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 an output schema exists and annotations plus 100% schema coverage are present, the description only needs to supply routing, mutation semantics, and the undo path — all of which it does. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: 'difficulty' drives the rank track and the linked countdown's ticks, and 'scope' defaults to shared when omitted. That default-value and cross-field linkage information is not in 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 and resource ('Track narrative vows, quests, and obligations with milestones') and enumerates the supported operations. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by naming manage_countdown and manage_history as the tools for adjacent concerns, so an agent can route 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.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit 'Use when:' triggers (setting, advancing, resolving, forsaking, listing) and an explicit 'Do NOT use when:' exclusion that names the alternative tool and action ('use manage_countdown (action: set)'). It also routes the undo case to manage_history with the precise action, leaving nothing to inference.

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