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

Annotations already declare it as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, so the description's job is to add context beyond that — and it does, disclosing the required missions:run token scope and pointing to the SHIP API docs. It stops short of saying what is destroyed on failure or whether retries duplicate issues, which matters for a non-idempotent creation 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 compound action and the 'no issue yet' scope are front-loaded, and each sentence carries information. The middle sentence is long and packs two conditional hand-off modes into one breath, which slightly hurts scannability but wastes no words.

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 an 8-parameter tool with nested agent overrides and no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious parts: the two entry modes, the title-omission rule, auth scope, and API docs. It omits nothing critical, though it doesn't mention the agents/labels/description fields (all adequately schema-documented).

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 the schema already documents every parameter, including the entryPlan/entryPrNumber coupling. The description restates those relationships (entryStartAt pairing, title omission with entryPrNumber) rather than adding new semantics, 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?

The description states a specific compound action (create the tracker issue AND start the run in one call) and scopes it with 'for work that has no issue yet', which implicitly but clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_mission or list_missions. An agent can tell what resource is produced without opening the 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?

It gives explicit branching guidance: use entryStartAt='builder' with an entryPlan to hand over a plan, or entryStartAt='reviewer'/'qa' with entryPrNumber to hand over an existing build. It does not name the alternative tool (e.g. start_mission) for work that already has an issue, so the when-not is only implied by 'for work that has no issue yet'.

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