delete_quest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive and likely irreversible, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, side effects (e.g., impact on related graph elements), error handling, or rate limits. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is poorly structured with unnecessary line breaks ('Delete\n an existing\n quest\n from\n the\n knowledge\n graph'), making it harder to parse. While it's brief, the formatting wastes space and reduces clarity. A single, clean sentence would be more effective.

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?

Given the complexity of a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like what happens upon deletion (e.g., success/failure responses, error cases), dependencies, or safety warnings. For a tool that permanently removes data, this is inadequate.

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%, with the parameter 'name' clearly documented in the schema as 'The name of the quest to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?

The description states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an existing quest from the knowledge graph'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'quest' means in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_artifact, delete_npc) beyond specifying the resource type. It's not tautological but lacks specificity.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., quest must exist), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or when to choose other tools like update_quest. Without any usage context, the agent has minimal direction.

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