update-quest-journal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'styles + appends' the blocks, is 'append-only,' and mentions visibility inheritance for new pages. These are behavioral traits beyond basic schema details.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently covers purpose, usage, and key parameters.

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 the tool's complexity and absence of output schema, the description provides sufficient context: block types, page targeting, visibility options, and a note about requiring a heading block. An agent can correctly invoke the tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'you supply the words as blocks; the tool styles + appends them'), but the schema already thoroughly describes each block type and parameter.

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 purpose: 'Append a new styled section to a quest/journal page from typed blocks'. It specifies the verb 'append', the resource 'quest/journal page', and the mechanism 'typed blocks'. It also mentions the specific context '§8 session-log/progress path', distinguishing it from general journal update tools.

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 for usage: 'By default appends to the first text page; use pageId to target a page, or newPageName to start a new page.' It also notes 'Structuring only,' implying the tool handles structure rather than raw content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.

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