Create mission (task pool) (admin)

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

The description adds that the tool mutates live game config and advises confirming and preferring staging, which goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). It does not detail side effects, but the warning suffices.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences front-loaded with the definition, usage guidance, and a safety warning. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, nested objects), the description provides a clear mental model and usage context. It could mention more about return values or configuration, but the essentials are covered.

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 55%, so baseline is around 3. The description does not add extra details for individual parameters beyond what the schema provides; it gives a high-level overview but no compensation for lacking param descriptions.

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 defines the tool as creating a mission (task pool) with typeId 1, gives concrete use cases (daily missions, rotating challenges), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools (specter_create_step_series for sequential, specter_create_time_series for streaks).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('daily missions', 'rotating challenges', 'pick N of these') and when not to use it ('sequential use specter_create_step_series; for streaks use specter_create_time_series').

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