create-journal

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains behavioral traits like GM-only default, page visibility (playerVisible), folder creation, and page types. However, it does not mention idempotency or error conditions, but overall provides good context beyond schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details page types, differentiates from sibling, and covers folder and visibility. Every sentence adds value; no redundant 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 no output schema and high schema coverage, description covers key aspects: creation of journal, page types, folder option, and visibility. It misses explicit mention of default page kind (text) and return value, but is complete enough for a creation tool with good parameter documentation.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the distinction between text and image pages, the requirement of src for images, the optional caption, and the meaning of playerVisible. This goes beyond schema 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 clearly states it creates a multi-page JournalEntry from supplied pages. It distinguishes from sibling 'create-quest-journal' by noting it takes explicit pages and only folders when folderName is given. The verb and resource are specific.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with sibling tool 'create-quest-journal', stating that this tool is for generic journals with explicit pages, while the sibling has styled blocks and auto-folders. This gives clear when-to-use guidance.

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