add_facts

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

The description reveals extensive behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains that each fact is gated with hard constraints, details the atomic parameter's effect on partial vs full rollback, and describes the return value format. The annotation only provides readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds substantial transparency.

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 a single paragraph in Japanese, front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a concise structure with inline examples and parameter explanations. It is not overly long, but the mixed language and lack of code-like formatting slightly reduce readability. Overall efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple facts, atomicity, hard constraints, return values), the description covers key aspects but misses explaining the 'branch' parameter. There is no output schema, but the return format is described. The absence of output schema and incomplete parameter explanation leaves some gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the structure of the 'facts' array and fields like subject, attribute, value, chapter, etc. It also explains the 'atomic' parameter. However, the required 'branch' parameter is not explained, leaving a gap. Thus, it adds value but is incomplete.

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 registers multiple facts together with hard constraints, specifically for batch input of one scene's facts. The verb 'add_facts' is descriptive, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_fact' and 'add_constraint' by specifying bulk operation.

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?

The description provides a specific use case: 'when you want to batch input facts for one scene.' It implies usage context but does not explicitly compare with similar tools like 'add_fact' or 'import_facts' or give when-not-to-use scenarios. The guidance is clear though not exhaustive.

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