completeQuest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that heroes (AI-controlled) or players can complete quests, but does not disclose side effects, state transitions, return values, or any prerequisites. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides useful context about who can invoke the tool. 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is minimal. It covers the core action and actor, but omits side effects, return behavior, and prerequisites. The description is adequate for a simple state transition but leaves noticeable context gaps for a mutation tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema; it frames the action as completed/failed, which aligns with the 'success' parameter but does not elaborate on failureReason or completionNotes. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Mark') and a clear resource ('a quest'), and explicitly states the two possible outcomes: completed or failed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like assignHeroToQuest, which handles quest assignment rather than completion.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a quest needs to be marked as completed or failed) and notes that both heroes and players can perform this action. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.

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