Update Character Bible

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says '扩展' (expand), implying a mutation, but says nothing about required permissions, whether fields are additive or overwritten, or what happens with the nested voice object. With 6 params and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single parenthetical-free sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. It could add value without bloat, but it does not waste words.

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 6-param mutation tool with a nested object, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits the required entity_id, scoping via project_id, and any mutation semantics.

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%. The description mentions three of the six params (motivation, taboos, voice) but ignores entity_id (required), project_id, and relationships_ref. Nested voice fields (style, sample_lines, forbidden_phrases) are undocumented anywhere. The description only partially compensates.

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 verb (扩展/expand) and resource (角色圣经/character bible fields), and names three field groups (motivation/taboos/voice). But it is a terse phrase with no differentiation from siblings like register_character_arc or register_entity, and it leaves the Chinese description ambiguous about whether it creates vs. modifies fields.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The agent gets no guidance on how this differs from register_character_arc, register_entity, or other character-related siblings.

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