Register Scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether registering creates or upserts, what happens on duplicate id, whether the 8 optional parameters are persisted as-is, or what permissions/active-project state are required. The verb implies a mutation but no consequences are described.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single seven-character phrase cannot carry a 10-parameter mutation tool. No sentence is wasted, but far too few sentences exist.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. Nothing about required fields beyond the schema's implicit required list, relationships to projects/beats/threads, or failure behavior is communicated.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all for a tool with 10 parameters (id, act, depth, title, status, beat_id, quest_id, event_ids, project_id, thread_ids). An agent cannot tell, for example, whether depth is an ordering index or a narrative-depth metric, or what event_ids/thread_ids reference.

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 states a verb+resource ('注册' / register) but the resource is given as an ambiguous compound '场景/任务清单条目' (scene/task-list entry), which leaves it unclear whether this registers a narrative scene, a quest-list row, or a generic scene record. It does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like list_scenes, link_event_to_scene, or check_scene_against_rules.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (e.g. register_event, register_beat, link_event_to_scene) is the alternative. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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