create-scene-notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains deterministic behavior, error isolation per note, that GM-only secrecy is from journal ownership not the pin, and that 'global' only controls fog occlusion. It also states the return value (each created note id). No contradictions.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then provides essential details. Every sentence adds value. It is concise but could be slightly better organized (e.g., separate sections for usage, behavior, return). Still, it is efficient.

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 annotations, no output schema, and nested input (notes array), the description covers purpose, parameters, error handling, and return. It is mostly complete, though it lacks details on error behavior for unresolved scene identifiers. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as referencing 'get-scene-dimensions' for padding-aware math and clarifying the 'global' parameter's role. This enhances understanding.

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 action ('Place map-note PINS on a scene') and the resource (linked to a JournalEntry), and distinguishes it from siblings by calling it 'the deterministic half of the legend→GM-room-pins feature'. It is specific and informative.

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 clear context on how to use the tool, including guidance on x/y coordinates referencing 'get-scene-dimensions', per-note error isolation, and the meaning of the 'global' parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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