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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the limit increases by exactly one step, that the interrupted stage re-runs, that credits are spent, that human consent is expected, the returned value, and the 409 failure condition. Annotations only supply the generic write/non-idempotent profile.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: context, then the action's side effects, then the warning, then the return/error/scope facts. Every sentence earns its place, though the second sentence packs behavior, cost, and a warning into one long clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the return value, the error case, the authorization scope, and the irreversible credit spend. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely is missing.

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 issueId and projectId are fully documented in the schema (including the GitHub key format and where projectId comes from). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with mechanism: raises the mission's credit ceiling by one step and re-runs the stopped stage. An agent can distinguish this from resume_mission or request_more_credits without opening any schema.

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 a clear operating condition ('ask the person first' since it spends credits) and a negative condition (409 when the mission is not at its limit), plus the missions:run scope requirement. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives like request_more_credits for agents that need more than one step.

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