Report resource usage

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

Annotations are completely absent, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Atomically add' and 'Hard limits are enforced', which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not specify what happens when hard limits are exceeded (e.g., error, partial addition) or whether there are side effects. The atomicity and limit enforcement are valuable but not complete behavioral disclosure.

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 one concise sentence that includes the essential action, resources, targets, and constraints. It is front-loaded with the primary action and efficient, though it could benefit from a note about idempotency, but that is a completeness issue.

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, no annotations, no output schema, nested usage object), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the idempotencyKey, optimistic concurrency via version fields, what 'hard limits' means specifically, or how usage is aggregated. The tool appears to be a critical financial/usage tracking point, but the description leaves many behavioral aspects for the agent to infer.

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 add meaning. The description mentions 'token, cost, wall-time, and tool-call usage', which correspond to the 'usage' nested object fields. However, it does not explain the required parameters like missionId, actorId, expectedMissionVersion, idempotencyKey, or expectedTaskVersion. It also doesn't clarify the purpose of idempotencyKey or version fields, which are critical for correct use.

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 verb (atomically add) and specific resources (token, cost, wall-time, tool-call usage) to a mission and optionally a task. This distinguishes it from other tools like task_heartbeat or task_commit, which have different purposes. The atomicity hint and hard limits are also mentioned.

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 indicates this tool is used for reporting resource usage to a mission/task, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. Given the context of mission/task management, it's implied that this is for periodic reporting or at the end of a task, but not explicit. There's no mention of when not to use it or alternatives.

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