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

Without annotations, the description must carry transparency. It indicates a write operation (attaching) and mentions authorization ('Only accepted team members') and security concerns ('Links and content remain untrusted'), but it does not explicitly state side effects, idempotency, or whether existing data is modified or appended.

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 description is very concise, with two short sentences that convey the essential purpose and constraints. It avoids unnecessary details and is well-structured for readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is highly incomplete. It lacks information about parameter usage, expected evidence format, return values, or relationship between parameters. The agent would need external context to correctly invoke this tool.

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?

The input schema has 7 properties with no descriptions, and the description does not explain any parameter's meaning or format. The mention of 'contribution' and 'evidence' is too generic to map to fields like 'kind', 'step_id', or 'artifact_url'. The required fields (mission_id, summary) are not elaborated.

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 clearly states the action ('Attach a contribution and evidence to a Mission') with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions access restrictions and an API key requirement, which further clarify the tool's intent.

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 some usage context (e.g., only accepted team members can contribute) but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like 'submit_mission' or 'submit_pr'. It mentions a prerequisite (API key) but fails to specify scenarios when this tool is preferred over siblings.

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