orquestra_append_mission_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: it appends rather than overwrites, it targets the master AGENTS.md, and it takes a backup. It omits permissions, whether a missing section is created, and failure/concurrency behavior, so it is only partially adequate for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the append action and the backup side effect appear immediately. It is efficient, though extremely brief.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations the description leaves real gaps: section-matching semantics, backup location, and whether the section is created if absent.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. 'A section' loosely maps to section_title and 'mission directive' to rule_content, but it gives no format, matching, or content-structure guidance for either parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (append), a specific resource (mission directive / rule) and its destination (a section of the master AGENTS.md), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like create_skill or toggle_mcp. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. The agent must infer from the verb alone that this is for adding persistent project directives.

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