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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys partial-update semantics via 'and/or' and the dual targeting mechanism, but says nothing about what happens when a title prefix matches multiple quests, whether a nonexistent target errors, permission/auth requirements, or reversibility of a mutation.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and the two update fields, with the targeting detail trailing. No filler or redundancy.

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, and the low complexity of a field update is largely covered. Still, with zero required parameters and no annotations, the description should say what happens if neither quest_id nor title is supplied, and it omits workspace scoping entirely.

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 only 40%, so compensation matters. The description does add real semantics the schema lacks, notably that title matching is a prefix match ('start of its title'), and echoes the questId/id aliases already documented for quest_id. However, the workspace parameter is never mentioned and the update fields are not tied to the enum values, leaving gaps.

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 clear verb and resource ('Update a quest's priority and/or status') and names the exact mutatable fields, so the agent knows what changes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling wyrm_quest_complete, which also transitions status, leaving an ambiguity an agent must resolve itself.

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?

The sentence gives targeting guidance ('by its exact id (quest_id) or by matching the start of its title'), which is a usable identification rule. But it offers no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like wyrm_quest_complete, wyrm_quest_claim, or wyrm_quest_release, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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