Take Play Turn

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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: non-persistent, no Novel state mutated, handle is session-scoped and single-use, consumed by manage_story (action: record), and recording works even without it. Slight tension with idempotentHint=true, since each call mints a fresh single-use handle; the description does not reconcile repeated-call behavior, which keeps it from a 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then lifecycle, then use/don't-use routing — every clause carries distinct information. Slightly dense, with the handle-consumption detail packed mid-sentence, but no filler.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description supplies the missing pieces: persistence semantics, handle lifecycle, the downstream consumer, and graceful degradation if the handle is skipped. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 'intent' and 'entity_id' are already documented; the description only adds the notion that intent is fed to the parser. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 chain and resource: resolve a player intent through the parser and mint a turn handle for the story record. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from manage_combat and resolve_mechanic, so an agent can route between them 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?

Gives an explicit 'Use when: taking a turn before recording its outcome' plus two named 'Do NOT use when' cases with the exact alternative tool and action (manage_combat advance, resolve_mechanic roll). This is the strongest form of routing guidance.

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