Close mission

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool enforces terminal-state and acceptance conditions, but does not explain what happens on precondition failure, the irreversible nature of closing, versioning semantics, or effect of idempotencyKey. Some transparency is provided, but significant gaps remain.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by a key condition and a requirement. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the mission-completion precondition and acceptance decision. It omits critical context such as optimistic locking via expectedVersion, idempotencyKey usage, actorId semantics, and what the response indicates on success or failure. The description is too sparse for a state-transition 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only hints at acceptFailedTasks through 'explicit acceptance decision' and says nothing about missionId, actorId, expectedVersion, or idempotencyKey. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 defines the operation as 'Complete a mission' on the mission resource, distinguishing it from mission_create and mission_get. The precondition 'only after every task is terminal' adds specificity without ambiguity.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: only after every task is terminal, and that failed tasks require an explicit acceptance decision. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios beyond the stated precondition.

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