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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal a genuinely non-obvious behavior — title matching is a prefix match rather than an exact ID lookup — which adds value beyond the schema. Yet it leaves ambiguities: whether multiple quests sharing a title prefix are all updated or only one, what happens when no quest matches, and whether a status change has side effects on downstream decisions given siblings like wyrm_decision_downstream.

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, action-first sentence with zero filler. The key scoping detail — title-prefix matching — is embedded immediately after the verb, so an agent grasps the core behavior at a glance. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does not address return values, no-match handling, or multi-match ambiguity — all realistic failure modes for a prefix-matching updater. The coverage is adequate for a simple status/priority toggle but incomplete for a mutation that operates from partial titles in an ecosystem containing claim, release, complete, and decision-tracking siblings.

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 in the schema), so the description must compensate. It maps the parameters meaningfully: title is identified as the prefix matcher, and status and priority are identified as the updatable fields. It does not clarify that status and priority are optional, whether at least one of them is needed for a meaningful update, or what a title-only call does.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Update a quest') and narrows scope to 'priority and/or status', which distinguishes it from siblings like wyrm_quest_add, wyrm_quest_list, and wyrm_quest_claim. The parenthetical '(by matching the start of its title)' adds a distinctive matching mechanism that clarifies how the quest is identified. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with wyrm_quest_complete, which also handles the status side of updates.

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 intended use is implied: an agent should call this when it wants to change a quest's priority, status, or both by title prefix. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to a sibling such as wyrm_quest_complete for completion-specific updates or wyrm_quest_release for releasing quests. An agent can infer the primary use case but must reason about alternatives on its own.

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