mission_apply_suggestions

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool mutates mission configuration, that it applies pre-recorded deltas, that it is meant to be called once, and that the applied values are echoed. It does not mention side effects, reversibility, or the no-delta case, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and action-first, with no filler. The cryptic 'H10:' prefix is unexplained and adds little value, which prevents a perfect score, but the rest is tightly written and informative.

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 description covers the trigger, the action, the one-call behavior, and the echoed output, which is good for a focused mutation tool. However, it omits any explanation of the repo parameter and does not situate this tool against the many mission_* siblings, leaving some context incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the purpose or format of mission_id or repo. The mission_id is inferable from context and the sibling tool naming, but repo is entirely undocumented. With such low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 states a specific action ('apply the config deltas recorded at mission create') on a concrete resource, with a triggering condition (model preflight flagged the worker model). It is clearly distinct from the sibling mission_* tools, which handle creation, planning, running, and validation rather than applying recorded suggestions.

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 gives a clear when-to-use condition, including a concrete example (worker_timeout>=900 for SMALL-OUTPUT-BUDGET models). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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