Create mission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key stateful behavior: strategy is locked at creation time, default fanout applies, and directorPlan is permitted only for a director_plan strategy and forbidden otherwise. It does not mention idempotency semantics, but it covers the most critical creation-time constraints.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. High-value constraints and workflow order are front-loaded, and the conditional directorPlan guidance is compact yet complete.

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 caller has 10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains only the strategy/directorPlan relationship and the 'before spawning' workflow. It does not address idempotency usage, risk values, budget, or portrait semantics, leaving an agent with meaningful gaps for a correct call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for strategy (default fanout, locked at create) and directorPlan (workspace-relative .md path required only for director_plan, forbidden otherwise). However, 10 parameters are involved, and required fields such as objective, successCriteria, risk, actorId, and idempotencyKey are not explained. The description covers only a fraction of the parameter space.

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?

Description uses a specific verb + resource: 'Create the durable mission record', and adds context about when this happens ('before spawning agents'). This differentiates it clearly from sibling tools like mission_get and mission_close, which operate on an already-existing mission.

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 states clear context for use: it must be called to create a durable mission record before any agents are spawned. It gives a temporal placement in the workflow, although it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions. This is sufficient to guide an agent on when to invoke it versus the task-level sibling tools.

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