Link a figure to a quest

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing conditional behavior (link vs. plain text when actor exists/not exists), error handling for ambiguous names, idempotency rules (same figure/role not added twice), and the safe whole-page update mechanism. This adds significant context beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint flags.

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 compact (~90 words) and front-loads the core action, then covers conditional behavior, edge cases, idempotency, and page safety. No filler or repetition of parameter names; each sentence adds a distinct piece of 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?

For a mutation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all critical behavior: actor resolution, duplicate handling, list creation context, and safe page updates. It hints at response feedback ('the answer says so'), which is enough for an agent to call correctly. No obvious 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 100% with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining npcName semantics ('exact name or id'), and clarifies that relationship determines role equality for duplicate detection. This goes slightly beyond the schema but does not elaborate on enum 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 states a specific action ('Add a figure with its role to the list of related figures') and identifies the exact resource ('the first text page of a quest journal'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like journal-link-tags or update-quest-journal by the unique operation on the quest's related figures list.

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 gives clear context on when this tool is used (extending the related figures of a quest journal) and explains the one-time creation of the list in create-quest-journal or at page end. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., journal-link-tags) or state when NOT to use it, leaving some inference.

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