NPC

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral detail. It discloses the operational scope (active Novel) and the five operation kinds, including a destructive 'remove'. However, it does not state that remove is irreversible, whether updates merge or replace fields, or any side effects or authorization requirements, so it only partially meets the burden.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scoped to the active Novel, followed by a precise exclusion. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core context: what it manages, when to use it, and the key sibling alternative, and the schema covers all parameter semantics. Without an output schema or annotations it could additionally explain response/return behavior, but for a CRUD tool the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 schema fully documents all eight parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond naming use cases, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states 'Manage non-player characters in the active Novel' with a specific resource and scope, and directly contrasts with the character tool for player characters. The listed use cases (introducing, revising, removing, listing, reading) map cleanly to the five actions, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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' and 'Do NOT use when' guidance names the exact alternative (character with action create/import/sheet) and the distinguishing condition (player characters vs NPCs). This is exemplary routing guidance.

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