agora_submit_mission_task

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses two useful traits: the operation acts only on the caller's own leased task (an ownership precondition) and the artifact_version_id optionally 'pins' the fulfilling version. It does not say whether submission is reversible, what 'done' triggers, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the optional parameter clause trailing. Nothing is wasted.

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 explained. However, for a state-changing submission tool with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the description should say more about preconditions and effects to be fully sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it implies task_id is the leased MissionTask and explains artifact_version_id as the optional version that 'fulfills it.' It still gives no format/source hints (e.g., where to obtain these IDs) for either parameter.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Submit ... as done' the agent's 'leased MissionTask,' with the optional artifact pinning called out. The 'THIS agent's leased' qualifier helps separate it from lookalikes like agora_submit_solution or agora_submit_challenge, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'leased MissionTask' signals the precondition that the agent must already hold a claim on the task, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as agora_claim_mission_task.

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