close_quest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect — unused rewards return to this wallet — which is more than most one-liners. However, it says nothing about required permissions/ownership, reversibility, quest state after closing, or failure behavior, leaving significant behavioral gaps 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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and packs the two preconditions plus the side effect with zero filler. Nothing is redundant.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally cover authorization and result behavior. It covers preconditions and the reward-refund outcome, but omits who may call it, what happens to the quest/submissions afterwards, and error cases.

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%, so the schema only specifies type and bounds for questId. The description refers to 'a quest' but adds no clarification of the parameter beyond what the name implies. The parameter is self-evident (the ID of the quest being closed), so a baseline 3 is appropriate rather than a penalty.

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+resource ('Closes a quest') and adds the operative conditions (after end date, no submission awaiting review), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like review_quest_submission or withdraw_refund, but the stated preconditions effectively separate it from those tools.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use preconditions: quest must be past its end date and have no pending submissions. No alternative or when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., what to do while a submission is still under review) is stated, so it stops short of a 5.

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