Add a page

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

The annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation; the description adds the non-obvious behavioral guarantee that the HTML is stored exactly as sent and that the page is appended at the end. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every part, especially the end-position placement and stored-as-sent note, contributes meaningful information.

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 its simplicity and fully documented schema, the description is mostly sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. It is not fully complete because there is no guidance about return values and no mention of sibling alternatives like journal-append-page or journal-page-from-file, which an agent would need for confident selection.

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?

The schema already describes all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the description carries little parameter burden. The phrase 'HTML stored as sent' reinforces the meaning of the html parameter without adding new information about journalId or name beyond the schema values.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it adds a new text page, at the end of a journal, and preserves HTML exactly as sent. It is clear enough to understand the operation, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool journal-append-page, whose name suggests nearly the same behavior, so it misses the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.

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 phrase 'Add a new text page at the end of a journal' and the HTML-stored-as-sent detail imply the intended use case clearly. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of journal-append-page, journal-set-page, journal-page-from-file, or replace-journal-page.

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