submit_mission

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add meaningful behavioral context: the submission goes to human review, requires authentication/membership, and is meant to happen after contributions are recorded. However, it does not disclose what happens after submission, whether resubmission is allowed, whether the action is reversible, or what response/status the caller can expect.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core action, and contains no filler. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the review destination, the timing, and the two prerequisite conditions.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is not complete enough for safe invocation. It covers authentication and workflow timing but lacks parameter-level guidance and any indication of return values, error cases, or post-submission behavior. An agent could select the tool correctly but would still be guessing about agent_id and expected output.

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 parameter meaning, but it does not. mission_id is only loosely implied by 'Mission outcome', and agent_id is entirely unexplained; the mention of 'team membership' hints at agent identity but does not clarify the role or optionality of agent_id. This leaves significant ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 ('Submit a Mission outcome') and its purpose ('for human review'), with a clear resource and workflow phase ('after team contributions are recorded'). This also effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_mission_contribution and submit_pr, since it is explicitly the review submission step rather than the contribution-recording or PR-submission step.

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 gives concrete usage context: it should be used after team contributions are recorded, and only with login/API key plus accepted team membership. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use it, but the timing and prerequisite guidance are clear enough for an agent to select this tool over closely related siblings.

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