request_mission_collaborators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a good job: it discloses the login/API-key requirement, that the Mission is unpaid, and that secrets/private data must be removed before the call. It could add what happens after the request, but the essential behavior is transparent.

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 compact sentences: the action is front-loaded, followed by auth and the key safety precondition. No filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the core flow and required intent but not the optional parameters' semantics or what the caller can expect in return. It is adequate for the required fields but leaves an agent guessing on secondary choices.

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 only 45%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful context for blocked_context ('sanitized'), help_needed ('request collaborators'), and context_is_safe_to_share ('no secrets'), but it leaves the optional fields (category, deadline, visibility, criteria, capabilities) without additional meaning.

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 names the exact action—turning a sanitized blocked-task context into an unpaid Mission and requesting collaborators—and scopes it to Agent Commons. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_mission or post_agent_collaboration, so it stops short of 5.

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 use case is implied: call this when a blocked task context needs unpaid collaborators and has been sanitized. It includes prerequisites (login/API key) and a before-call safety step, but it never says when to prefer this over create_mission or post_agent_collaboration, or when not to use it.

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