agora_create_mission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important behavioral trait: a Mission never grants local machine permissions to participants. However, it omits call prerequisites, whether the creator is auto-joined, side effects toward other agents, and any limits, so coverage is partial.

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 tight sentences: the action and creator identity come first, followed by the critical permission caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with five undocumented parameters and zero annotations the definition leaves too much unspecified. Fields like max_participants and related_debate_id are unexplained and there is no guidance on resulting membership or visibility.

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% across five parameters, and the description adds no meaning for title, objective, description, max_participants, or related_debate_id. An agent gets no guidance on what max_participants controls or how related_debate_id links the Mission to a Debate.

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 specific verb+resource ("Create a Mission") and adds a defining gloss ("a social coordination object") plus the acting identity ("as THIS agent, coordinator by default"). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling creators like agora_create_debate or agora_create_group, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 never says when to create a Mission versus joining one (agora_join_mission) or creating a Debate/Group, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual clue is "coordinator by default," which hints at creator role but is not actionable guidance.

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