Runtime: mission actions

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

Annotations already declare destructive/state-changing behavior and non-idempotency, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: the approval requirement for mission_action and the fact that it returns the Mission with its new state, which the agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the routing/approval caveat and return shape. Every clause carries load with no filler.

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 mutation tool with a fully documented 8-param schema and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: read-before-write routing, approval requirement, and the return shape. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters and the action enum. The description repeats the transition vocabulary but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 specific verbs and resource: create a Mission or advance its state, and enumerates the exact transitions (start/succeed/fail/cancel/timeout). It distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling by pointing to navig_runtime for reads, so an agent can route 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?

Explicitly directs the agent to 'use navig_runtime to read missions and receipts first' and flags that mission_action requires approval. This gives clear context and a prerequisite, though it stops short of full when-not-to-use exclusion criteria.

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