mission_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It says a validator is run and a verdict returned, but it does not disclose whether this mutates mission state, creates validation records, requires a particular mission status, or has blocking/performance implications.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently packs the action, the variant choices, and the return type, making it easy to scan while remaining appropriately concise.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: mission_id and repo semantics, which validator kind to choose, what the structured verdict contains, and what state changes may occur. An agent would need external workflow knowledge to invoke this 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'kind' parameter by listing its possible values, but 'mission_id' and 'repo' are left semantically unexplained, including what 'repo' refers to and how it affects validation.

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 ('Run a validator now'), identifies the resource (validator), enumerates the supported variants (scrutiny | user_testing | final), and tells the agent what to expect ('structured verdict'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like mission_approve or mission_run.

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?

No guidance is given about when to run a validator versus using alternatives like mission_readiness or mission_approve, nor when to choose scrutiny over user_testing or final. The word 'now' implies on-demand execution, but prerequisites, exclusions, and workflow placement are absent.

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