mission_replan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does this well by stating that valid completed work is preserved, invalidated work is marked superseded, and the plan revision is bumped. It could add more about side effects or irreversibility, but the key behavioral traits are 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, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. It states the core operation and then key behavioral outcomes without filler or repetition.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description omits essential parameter semantics and provides no explicit guidance on how to phrase the replan request or which parameters matter. For a tool with three undocumented parameters, this is a meaningful gap. The behavioral details are helpful, but the agent still lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 explain the parameters, but it does not. It never clarifies that 'instruction' likely carries the new constraint, what 'repo' is for, or the role of 'mission_id' beyond being required. The agent is left to guess parameter meanings from names alone.

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 ('replan') and resource ('remaining work'), and indicates the trigger condition ('around a new constraint'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like mission_plan or mission_steer by focusing on replanning around a changed constraint.

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 implies a clear usage context: use when a new constraint forces replanning of remaining work. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the condition is specific enough to guide selection.

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