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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the checkpoint-approval side effect of advancing to the next stage, and the required missions:write scope. It doesn't spell out reversibility of the approval or error cases, but the added context is substantial.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the checkpoint condition, then the routing alternative, ending with the scope requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 single-param action tool with no output schema, the description supplies the operational context an agent needs: what it does, the exact state that triggers it, the sibling alternative, and the required auth scope. Combined with annotations, nothing essential 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% and the single issueId param is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no syntax beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies – the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 (continue/resume) and resource (mission), and adds a precise behavioral detail distinguishing it: at a checkpoint it approves the stage's result and advances. An agent can tell this apart from pause_mission, stop_mission, and send_mission_instruction without opening a 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 an explicit triggering condition – get_mission showing pauseSource 'checkpoint:<role>' – and names the alternative (send_mission_instruction) with the exact reason to pick it (wanting changes instead of approval). Nothing is left to inference.

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