Create a journal

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

Annotations only indicate not read-only and not idempotent, so the description carries the behavioral load. It discloses GM-only visibility, automatic folder creation as a side effect, exact HTML storage, absence of a template page, and the returned journal id—valuable beyond structured fields.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: creation semantics, no-template clarification, GM visibility, folder behavior, and return value. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 3-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential runtime behavior: storage fidelity, permissions, folder handling, and the return value. No critical calling information is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical semantic detail: pages are stored in order and HTML exactly as sent, and folderName accepts id or exact name, auto-creates the folder, and has a defined omit-behavior. This goes well beyond the schema field descriptions.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a journal') and immediately gives differentiating detail: exactly the given pages, in order, stored as HTML exactly as sent, with no template page added. This separates it from update/add/append/page tools without needing to open schemas.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it: creating a new journal with exactly specified pages, including folder placement and the no-template behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the highest 'explicit alternatives' bar.

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