mission_finish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the slot lifecycle effect, that nothing is deleted, that items retain recipes and reasons, and what the response contains. It omits error/permission behavior (e.g. calling with no active mission), which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and every sentence adds information (parameter meaning, slot consequence, non-destruction). The sentences are long and clause-heavy, but there is little pure filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, yet the description still characterizes the reply as the full checklist record. Combined with the slot-freeing and non-destructive semantics, this is nearly complete for a one-parameter mutation tool; only the no-active-mission failure case is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0% and the single status parameter has no description or enum, so the description must supply meaning — and it does, defining 'done' and 'abandoned' semantics and clarifying that failure counts do not determine status. It stops short of enumerating whether other values are accepted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Close the active mission') and immediately ties it to the sibling relationship — closing frees the slot that mission_start needs — so an agent can separate it from mission_start, mission_status, and mission_mark without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear conditions for the required parameter choice (done vs abandoned) and explicitly addresses the ambiguous case of failed items, telling the agent it is a judgement call rather than a server rule. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative or say what to do if no mission is active.

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