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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds information beyond them: resetting re-arms the 'gift opened' email, a side effect an agent would not infer from the schema or annotations. It does not explain failure behavior for an invalid quest_id, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the side-effect detail. Every clause carries information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 three-parameter state toggle with no output schema, the description covers purpose, a usage scenario, and the email re-arm side effect. The main remaining gap is the conditional edit_token requirement, which is partly handled by the schema but never mentioned in the description.

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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters. It says nothing about quest_id or the opened boolean, and the edit_token field is documented only in the schema. The parameter names are largely self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning of its own.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it sets a gift's opened flag to true or false. That is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_quest, update_quest, or share_quest without opening the schema. It stops short of naming update_quest as the alternative, which keeps it from a 5.

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 parenthetical 'e.g. reset it after the creator tested the quest' supplies a concrete when-to-use scenario, which is useful. It does not say when not to use this tool or name update_quest as the general-purpose alternative for other quest field changes, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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