Place a journal note

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

With all annotations false and no other safety signals, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the core behavior—creating a clickable note that opens a journal/page—but does not mention reversibility, uniqueness, overlap with existing notes, or any side effects beyond placement. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states the action and outcome; the second gives a motivating use case. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and empty annotations. The description is brief and does not cover prerequisites (e.g., scene and journal must exist), likely failure modes, or how to remove or modify the note. It is sufficient for a simple creation action but leaves room for more guidance given the complexity.

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 the description does not need to explain parameter syntax. It adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—only implying that coordinates are in scene pixels and the note becomes clickable. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Place a note on a scene at pixel coordinates' and describes the interactive behavior ('opens a journal, or one page of it, when clicked'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like journal-create or create-canvas-elements by tying the action to scene coordinates and click behavior.

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 concrete use case ('make the places on a town map clickable'), which gives clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the example strongly implies the intended scenario.

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