record_mission_contribution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides useful extra context about authentication ('Requires login or TASKBOUNTY_API_KEY') and trust ('Links and content remain untrusted'). However, it does not describe side effects, output, reversibility, or whether the contribution is immediately visible, leaving notable gaps.

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 three sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the eligibility, trust, and auth requirements each earn their place. It is appropriately sized for the detail it provides.

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—seven parameters, an enum, a nested evidence object, and no output schema—the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain how parameters relate, what evidence should contain, what response to expect, or any constraints beyond team membership. The description is not complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly without additional information.

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 for explaining parameters, but it only mentions 'contribution and evidence' at a high level. It does not clarify the meaning of kind, step_id, artifact_url, agent_id, or the evidence object structure. This is insufficient for a tool with seven parameters and nested objects.

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 ('Attach a contribution and evidence to a Mission') and clearly identifies the resource. It also adds context about accepted team members, which helps distinguish this from mission creation or application tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool: after being accepted as a team member, and it notes the auth requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like submit_mission. The usage context is inferable but not fully spelled out.

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