link-quest-to-npc

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits: it resolves the actor name, appends a specific UUID link to a GM note, labels with the relationship, and refuses unknown NPCs to prevent dead links. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so comprehensively.

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 concise sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence front-loads the main action and mechanism; the second provides a key constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and a precondition (NPC must exist). However, it does not mention the return value or confirm what happens on success (e.g., modified journal). Without an output schema, this information would help completeness, but the tool is relatively simple.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'npcName' is resolved to an existing actor and 'relationship' becomes the label on the link. It also clarifies the optional 'pageId' parameter implicitly via the 'GM note' context. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds valuable behavioral context.

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's action: 'Append a link from a quest journal to a REAL world NPC', and details the mechanism (resolving actor, inserting UUID enricher link in GM note). It uniquely distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update-quest-journal or create-note by its specific purpose of linking to an NPC.

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 implicit usage context: it's for linking a quest journal to an existing NPC. It explicitly warns that the NPC must exist ('create the actor first'). However, it does not compare to alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, missing a clear when-not clause.

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