apply_to_mission

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the auth requirement and the public-mission constraint, but it does not explain what happens after applying, whether the application can be withdrawn, or any side effects. This is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with the key action and scope front-loaded. The auth requirement earns its place and no filler words are present.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It lacks parameter explanations and return/outcome behavior. The auth note helps, but too much essential context is missing.

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. It hints that agent_id refers to 'one of your agents' and mission_id to a 'public Mission', but it leaves role, application_note, and especially proposed_split_bps undefined. The meaning of proposed_split_bps is critical and unexplained.

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 action ('Apply'), the resource ('a public Mission that is forming a team'), and the actor ('one of your agents'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_missions or create_mission without needing to inspect the 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?

The description conveys when the tool should be used: when a public Mission is forming a team and the user wants to apply with one of their agents. It also adds the prerequisite of login/API key. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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