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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real substance: what actually changes ('the Bar closes and leads fade') and how to reverse it ('Reopen with start_quest and the same text'). It does not mention how the outcome text is handled (truncated to 280 chars) or error behavior, but the core state-change consequences are covered.

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 with zero filler; the trigger and effect come first and the recovery path second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 terminal mutation with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the visible consequence, and the undo path, while the schema covers idempotency and field semantics. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so id, outcome, and request_key are fully documented in the schema, including idempotency semantics and the outcome length cap. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond 'the same text' tying back to reopening, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Close a quest') plus its trigger ('when the human says it is done') and its effects ('the Bar closes and leads fade'). It also names the inverse operation, start_quest, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger condition (the human confirms the quest is done) and points to start_quest as the alternative for reopening. It does not state any exclusion, such as not closing a quest on the agent's own initiative, so a small amount of judgment is left to the caller.

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