mission_approve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is non-idempotent ('Safe to call only once') and state-dependent ('from AWAITING_APPROVAL'), and that it triggers dependency-aware execution. It does not detail all side effects, but the key transition 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?

A single, tight sentence with no filler. The action is stated first, and the critical safety constraint is included in the same sentence. Every word contributes.

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?

For a state-transition tool with an output schema and a simple input schema, the description covers the core semantics and the key precondition. The main gap is the unexplained optional repo parameter, but the tool is otherwise sufficiently specified for an agent in the AWAITING_APPROVAL state.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter. mission_id is reasonably inferable from the tool name, but repo is left entirely unexplained, and the description does not clarify how either parameter affects the approval or execution behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Approve') and resource ('the plan'), and clearly states the resulting behavior ('begin dependency-aware execution'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like mission_plan or mission_validate by tying it to the approval transition.

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 explicitly states when it is safe to call: 'only once, from AWAITING_APPROVAL.' This gives a clear precondition and cautions against repeated calls, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or the action to take when not in that state.

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