update_mission

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds that the tool updates configuration fields, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or partial update behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 structured with a one-line summary followed by an Args list. It is moderately concise, though the 'New' prefix in parameter descriptions is slightly redundant. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given 8 parameters, 1 required, and an existing output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks details on partial update behavior, what happens when a parameter is null, and the requirement that the mission exists. Not fully complete for a complex mutation tool.

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. It provides a brief semantic for each of the 8 parameters (e.g., 'mission_id: Mission to update.'), adding meaning beyond the schema's titles and types. Most descriptions are clear, though a few are minimal (e.g., 'config: JSON string of additional configuration').

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 clearly states 'Update an existing mission's configuration,' which specifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_mission (creation) and delete_mission (deletion), and other mutations (cancel, pause, resume) have different verbs.

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 implies usage context by stating the tool updates an existing mission, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. create_mission for new missions or other update-like tools. No exclusion criteria or alternatives mentioned.

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