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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and does not meet it: it never states that this is a write/create operation, whether duplicates are allowed, whether the caller is auto-assigned, or what happens if the workspace is omitted. Only the bare word "Add" hints at mutation, and nothing is said about side effects or permissions.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. But it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of routing and parameter guidance.

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 described, but for a create-type tool with 4 parameters at 25% schema coverage and zero annotations, the description leaves too much unknown: status on creation, duplication behavior, workspace defaulting, and priority defaults. The definition is not complete enough to call reliably without opening the schema and guessing.

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 has a description — so the description needed to compensate and does not. It never mentions title, detail, or priority (the latter an enum whose semantics, e.g. default value, are undocumented). The parenthetical "tracked goal or task" only weakly hints at what title/detail should contain.

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 verb+resource is present ("Add ... quest") and the parenthetical clarifies that a quest is a tracked goal or task. However it does not distinguish this from siblings like wyrm_quest_update, wyrm_quest_claim, or wyrm_capture, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name prefix alone. The term "open" is left unexplained (presumably initial status).

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus wyrm_capture, wyrm_remember, or wyrm_quest_update. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no guidance on whether a quest should be created here and later claimed/completed via the sibling tools.

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