update-quest-journal

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it appends (non-destructive), styles blocks automatically, and allows page targeting. It does not mention error states or limits, but the core behavior is well-disclosed.

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 front-loaded with purpose and examples in the first sentence. It is concise but includes some redundancy between 'Append a new styled section' and 'You supply the words as blocks; the tool styles + appends them.' Overall, 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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, detailed array schema, no output schema), the description covers the input flow and page targeting. However, it omits any mention of return values, error handling, or what happens when required parameters are missing. The example provides context but completeness is average.

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 semantic value (e.g., 'You supply the words as blocks') and uses an example that mirrors the schema. The schema already explains each block type well, so the description does not significantly enhance parameter 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 verb ('Append'), resource ('quest/journal page'), and specific scope ('typed blocks'). It provides an explicit example ('a heading "Session 3" + paragraphs') and distinguishes from siblings by referencing the 'session-log/progress path' and 'structuring only'.

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 explains default behavior ('appends to the first text page') and alternatives for targeting ('use pageId to target a page, or newPageName to start a new page'). It does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or compare with siblings like 'update-journal', but the context is clear enough for selection.

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