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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive, likely irreversible action, but the description does not state this, mention any cascading effects, permission requirements, or what happens when the quest is not found. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 one short sentence with no filler or redundant phrases. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is almost too sparse, since it sacrifices useful parameter context for brevity.

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?

For a tool with two required parameters, zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. It establishes the operation but fails to clarify the role of campaignId versus id, the destructive nature of the action, or any expected return behavior. An agent would need additional context to call this tool confidently.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about what 'id' or 'campaignId' mean, how they relate, or which one identifies the quest. The agent is left with only the raw schema, which gives types and required status but no semantic meaning. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 ('Delete') and a clear resource ('a quest'), making the operation unmistakable. It also implies the target must already exist, which distinguishes it from create_quest. Among the siblings, the verbs cleanly separate delete_quest from get_quest, update_quest, create_quest, and list_quests.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions such as 'use delete_quest only when the quest exists' or 'use update_quest to modify instead.' The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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