Note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that notes are ephemeral 'scratch state' scoped per badge with a default, and warns against storing durable facts. It does not fully explain the server-scoped variants or operation side effects, keeping it just shy of complete.

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?

Two efficient sentences: the first front-loads scope and default, the second gives usage rules and the alternative. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a tool with six actions and two scoping models, the description covers purpose, scope, default, and the key alternative. The only notable gap is that 'server' actions and narrative_tag are left entirely to the schema, but the schema descriptors are explicit enough to fill that gap.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the description only needs to add value. It adds the default for badge_scope (game_master) and clarifies the scratch/badge-scoped semantics, which goes beyond the enum values.

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?

States a specific resource ('Novel-scoped scratch notes') plus scoping behavior ('badge-scoped to game_master (default), player, or shared'), and explicitly contrasts it with lore for durable facts. This clearly differentiates the tool from its siblings.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' conditions, and names the exact alternative ('use lore (action: set)'). An agent can decide immediately whether this is the right tool.

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