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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The word 'open' hints that the created entity defaults to an open status, which is a small disclosure beyond the name. However, it says nothing about permissions, duplicate handling, default priority, or whether priority is mutable later, leaving mutation behavior opaque.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it conveys, though the terseness is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 4-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations, 25% schema coverage, and no usage guidance, the description leaves too much unspecified for an agent to call it reliably in a crowded sibling set.

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 25% – only 'workspace' is documented. Title, detail, and the priority enum carry no explanation in either the schema or the description, and the description adds nothing about them (e.g., whether detail is a body, what a missing priority defaults to). The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Add) and resource (quest), and glosses quest as 'a tracked goal or task', which helps an agent understand the domain object. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wyrm_quest_update or wyrm_quest_claim, but the create verb is unambiguous enough to route correctly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus wyrm_quest_update, wyrm_quest_claim, or other quest siblings. It does not state prerequisites, nor whether it is the entry point of a claim/complete workflow. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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