Mission transitions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: "Each writes the status and its history," telling the agent this persists state plus audit history rather than just returning a computed value. It stops short of flagging that transitions like drop are irreversible or what the response looks like.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, then routing, then per-action requirements. No filler; every clause carries an actionable constraint.

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 state-transition tool with 91% schema coverage, the description covers the operation, the alternatives, and the required-parameter rules well. The remaining gap is return behavior — with no output schema, the agent does not know what a transition returns (updated status, history entry, or error on invalid transition).

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 91%, so the schema already documents notes, reason, blockers, resolution, targetStatus, and the decisions routing. The description's per-action parameter hints (notes for complete, reason for block/reopen) largely restate what the schema already says, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 and resource ("Change mission state") and the enum of transitions makes the scope concrete. It explicitly separates itself from rbook_mission ("plan or edit missions with rbook_mission") and rbook_decisions, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Names alternatives and the conditions that route to them: decisions go to rbook_decisions(action="record", missionId), planning/editing goes to rbook_mission. It also states per-action prerequisites (missionId always, reason for block/reopen), which is exactly the routing detail an agent needs before choosing a transition.

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