Novel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It refers only to high-level 'Manage Novel save files' and lists actions without explaining consequences of state-changing operations like end, archive, import replace, or checkpoint_remove. The description does not disclose what happens to save data, whether operations are reversible, or what mutations occur.

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 tool's purpose and action list, followed by crisp routing guidance in the second sentence. The enumerated action list is somewhat redundant with the schema enum, but it helps the agent quickly grasp scope without opening the schema.

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 24-parameter dispatcher with no output schema, the description provides enough context for tool selection and sibling disambiguation. However, it does not explain per-action effects or return behavior, which would be valuable given the breadth of actions and absence of annotations.

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 all 24 parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but per the calibration baseline this is acceptable since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool manages Novel save files and enumerates its actions, from lifecycle operations to checkpoints. It distinguishes the tool from sibling entity tools by explicitly saying not to use it for content inside the Novel. Minor wording inconsistency ('describe' vs schema's 'description') does not undermine the overall clarity.

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 gives an explicit 'Use when' condition—handling a campaign's lifecycle, interchange, or return points—and an explicit 'Do NOT use when' condition with named alternatives (npc, lore, faction, vow, story, note). This leaves little 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.