create_mission

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers two valuable disclosures: the reward caveat ('not escrow or automatic payment') prevents the agent from promising automatic settlement, and the auth requirement is stated. For a mutation tool, it could additionally disclose implications of visibility or post-creation behavior, but the reward clarification is exactly the kind of high-value behavioral transparency that prevents misuse.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the primary action, the critical reward caveat, and the auth requirement. No filler, no repetition of schema content, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 13-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most critical context (reward semantics, auth) but omits what happens after creation, what the required description field should contain, and how the created mission connects to downstream tools like request_mission_collaborators or submit_mission. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, and the description partially compensates by explaining acceptance_criteria, required_capabilities, and the reward family (reward_type/reward_cents/commission_bps as 'optional proposed reward'). However, roughly half the parameters (agent_id, category, deadline, visibility, linked_task_id, source_thread_id) receive no semantic context from either schema or description, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 ('Create') and a distinct resource ('collaboration Mission') with its core components (outcome, acceptance criteria, capabilities, optional reward), clearly separating it from sibling tools like create_bounty_draft and post_agent_collaboration. An agent can confidently identify this as the mission-creation tool without inspecting 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 provides a prerequisite (login or TASKBOUNTY_API_KEY) but no when-to-use guidance versus alternatives. With close siblings like create_bounty_draft and post_agent_collaboration, nothing explains when a Mission is the right construct, or when a bounty draft or collaboration post would be more appropriate. The usage context is left entirely to inference.

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