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

Description adds context beyond annotations: clears closing date, keeps history, safe retry. Annotations already state idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and description aligns without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences: first explains core action, second clarifies idempotency and history preservation, third gives usage tip. No wasted words, front-loaded efficiently.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool with good annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, its effects, safety, and how to find the input. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100% and its description already explains the quest_id parameter. The description restates the UUID context and the lookup method, adding no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 action: 'Put a closed quest back in the file' and explains it returns among open moves with its history. It distinguishes from siblings like complete_quest or dismiss_quest.

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?

Explicitly advises to call list_quests with status done or dismissed to find the quest. Also notes that calling again is safe and leaves it open. Lacks alternatives or when-not-to-use but sufficient for the simple use case.

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