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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: work in progress is lost, the pull request stays open, and the mission can be restarted via start_mission, plus the required missions:write scope.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler; the destructive consequence is front-loaded before the alternative route. Every clause carries distinct information.

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-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers consequence, reversibility, scope requirement, and the sibling alternative. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 parameter is fully documented with a format example (SHIP-412), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond what the schema states.

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 ("Hard-stop a mission") plus the concrete blast radius ("every agent run of it stops"). It immediately separates itself from the sibling stop_agent_run, which is a narrower operation.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: "To stop one agent run only, use stop_agent_run," and notes start_mission reverses the operation. It does not address pause_mission or archive_mission, the other nearby alternatives, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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