Story

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

The description names mutating actions like remove and update, which aligns with the readOnlyHint=false annotation and does not contradict it. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, persistence, or whether operations are reversible, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a single clear purpose sentence followed by usage direction. It avoids unnecessary detail while still covering the essential scope.

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 gives a high-level overview but does not specify which parameters are required for each action (e.g., record needs type and entry; promote needs index and key). An agent might struggle to construct a valid call for a particular action without additional inference.

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?

All eight parameters have descriptions, but several are terse or ambiguous (e.g., 'key' is described as 'Optional lore key (promote)' without explaining its exact role). The enum values for action, type, and filter are listed but not deeply contextualized for each operation.

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 a story journal with typed narrative memories and enumerates the supported actions (record, update, remove, list, promote). It also explicitly contrasts with the lore tool for durable world facts, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly lists when to use the tool (recording, editing, removing, listing, or promoting story beats) and provides a direct 'Do NOT use' condition directing durable world facts to lore. This gives clear guidance for tool selection.

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