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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by clarifying this only links pre-existing objects and requires a prior create step, which is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Two sentences plus a docs link; the core action is front-loaded and the create-first caveat is placed immediately after. The 'so what the rikma is pursuing and what it is actually doing about it stay connected' clause is rhetorical padding, but overall it is tight.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema but full annotation coverage, the description supplies the prerequisite workflow and object scope an agent needs. It omits expected behavior on repeated attaches (relevant given idempotentHint=false), which keeps it short of full completeness.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description loosely maps its prose to the entityType enum values but adds no format, id-sourcing, or naming detail beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a concrete verb (attach) and resource (an existing object to a process), and enumerates the object kinds it accepts (open mission, open resource, mission in progress, voted-on mission/resource). This lets an agent separate it from creation-oriented siblings, though the jargon ('rikma') adds noise rather than precision.

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 gives the precondition ('It does not create the object: create it first') and names the alternative paths (prepareMissionTool, createTaskTool, or the URL the tool returns). Clear context for use; no explicit when-not condition, but the create-vs-attach split covers the main ambiguity.

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