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

Annotations only supply readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the full role/permission model, the playersCanTick gate, and the return contract (quest as get_mnemon shows it, progress recounted). These are exactly the traits an agent needs to invoke safely.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and reference resolution, then permissions, then return value. Dense but every sentence carries weight; minor stutter in the reference detail keeps it from a 5.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still frames the return shape relative to get_mnemon, and it fully covers the permission model, target addressing, and the fact that the quest is not rewritten. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents campaignId, entryId, objectiveId, and the state enum. The description adds 'at any depth' for objectiveId and confirms the state triad, but largely restates schema content; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb set (tick/fail/reopen) on a specific resource (one objective of a quest by id) and scopes it to any depth without rewriting the quest. This clearly separates it from sibling writers like update_quest_mnemon, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 explicit conditional usage: a GM sets any state, a player may only tick a visibly-done objective (or undo that) and only while playersCanTick is on. It implies the alternative (in-place edit vs rewriting the quest) but never names a sibling tool directly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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