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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: each decision's downstream effect ('accept' passes QA, 'reject' fails the mission, 'rerun' re-runs QA on the same commit), the human-in-the-loop precondition, a 409 failure mode, and the required missions:write scope. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true, since 'reject' terminates the mission.

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?

Front-loads the eligibility condition, then the decision semantics, then the error and auth constraints. Four dense sentences with no duplication or filler.

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 state-mutating tool with only two required params and no output schema, the description covers precondition, detection method, per-value effects, error behavior, and authorization — everything an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum values are already documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description still earns credit by spelling out the semantic consequence of each decision and by adding a detail absent from the schema — that 'rerun' evaluates the same commit.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('answer the QA checkpoint of a mission') and immediately delimits the situation it applies to (pauseSource 'qa-unverifiable'), which separates it from siblings like approve_mission_ceiling, decline_mission, and set_mission_disposition.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition (mission waits at the QA checkpoint, detectable via get_mission pauseSource) and an explicit when-not (409 when the mission is not at the checkpoint). It stops short of naming the sibling tools an agent should reach for instead in those other cases, which keeps it off a 5.

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