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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive call; the description goes further by disclosing a side effect that annotations cannot express — approval also rewards the source feed and records the mission as a positive `replied` outcome. It even notes this behavior will change when the sidecar is wired, which is useful forward-looking context. It stops short of describing permissions or the response, but the hidden feedback-loop effect is exactly the kind of trait that matters here.

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 core action is front-loaded well, but the middle sentence spends considerable length on the RL-loop/sidecar roadmap, which is background rather than actionable instruction. It is organized but not tight — the roadmap detail could be compressed.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing pieces: the operator-signal semantics, the dual-meaning caveat, and the feedback side effect. An agent can call this correctly without opening anything else, though it lacks any return-value or error context.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description's note that omitting `edited_draft` keeps the existing draft largely restates the schema default. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource (approve a mission) plus the immediate consequence (queue it for outreach), so an agent knows the action and effect. It implies a counterpart to reject_mission/delete_mission but never names a sibling, so differentiation is left to the tool name.

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 explains the meaning of approval and how that meaning shifts between the manual outreach phase and the future autonomous sidecar, which is real usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over reject_mission or draft_mission, so routing guidance is only implied.

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