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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds real value on top: the exact blast radius ('Nothing else changes'), the reversibility path (unarchive_mission), and the auth requirements (scope plus owner/admin capability). That is precisely the mutation context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the effect, then the constraint, then the permissions. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated.

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 one-parameter, reversible mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect scope, reversibility, and authorization, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (Linear key or GitHub Issues id, e.g. SHIP-412). The description adds no format or validation detail beyond it, 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 ('Hide a finished mission') and scopes the effect precisely to list_missions and the board, which distinguishes it from siblings such as delete_sandbox_template or destroy_environment. An agent can immediately tell this is a soft, listing-level hide rather than a deletion.

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 gives conditions for calling it (finished mission, missions:write scope, config:write capability, owner/admin) and names unarchive_mission as the reversal path. It does not explicitly contrast with a destructive delete-style alternative, so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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