add-journal-image

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the default GM-only visibility and how to make it a handout, but does not explain error handling, return value, or side effects like image validation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should ideally mention return value or success confirmation. It does not. Given moderate complexity and good schema descriptions, the description is minimally complete but lacks closure on what the agent can expect back.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds context like 'Data-relative path' and 'defaults to file name' but largely duplicates schema descriptions. It does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 appends an image page to a journal entry, specifies the input (Data-relative image path) and optional caption, and distinguishes from siblings like create-journal or update-journal.

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 implies usage (append image to existing journal) and mentions GM-only vs. player-visible as a key consideration. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or what prerequisites exist (e.g., journal must exist).

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