mission_complete_feature

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so excellently. It discloses that the tool verifies the commit, runs validation_commands, executes a real scrutiny validation, appends events, and continues milestone flow. It also warns about long runtime, sandbox timeouts, and server-side completion, which is high-value behavioral context.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then parameter guidance, then a critical timeout note. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important warnings are front-loaded. The note about not re-calling blindly is especially useful and not redundant.

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 tool with no annotations and no schema-level descriptions, this is unusually complete. It covers when to use it, what side effects occur, parameter semantics, and failure-mode behavior. The output schema exists, so not describing return values is acceptable.

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, and it adds meaningful detail for summary, commit, changed_files, and tests. It explains formats, defaults, and the special requirement that commit is needed for git missions. It does not explicitly explain repo or the required mission_id/feature_id, but those are largely self-explanatory from their names and schema types.

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 states the tool's purpose: record work on a feature that was implemented outside the worker pipeline, and it contrasts this with editing mission state files by hand. It is specific about the verb and resource, and the context makes it distinguishable from generic mission tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as mission_retry_feature by name.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a feature was implemented outside the worker pipeline, and it explicitly advises using this instead of hand-editing mission state files. It does not, however, mention exclusions or directly compare against sibling tools like mission_validate or mission_retry_feature.

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