cheat_complete_missions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well to disclose that the write lease is required and that effects are immediate, but it says nothing about irreversibility, whether rewards/loot are granted, what happens to missions that cannot be completed, or the response shape. For a bulk-mutation cheat with zero annotation coverage, that is a meaningful gap.

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?

Two short sentences with the action and the prerequisite front-loaded in that order. Zero filler, and the scope qualifier 'all active missions and their objectives' is placed where it cannot be missed.

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 output schema, the definition covers what it does and the lease prerequisite, which is the minimum viable. It leaves out side effects an agent would want before calling it: whether completion is irreversible, whether mission rewards are awarded, and whether the session is locked out of further progression.

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 100% and both parameters already document their provenance ('Token returned by acquire_control', 'Current session_id from get_state'). The description reinforces this by restating the write-lease prerequisite, which ties the required 'lease' argument to the acquire_control flow, adding modest value over the schema.

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: 'Immediately complete all active missions and their objectives'. The word 'all' plus the 'story progression shortcut' gloss cleanly distinguishes it from the singular sibling cheat_complete_mission without needing to name it.

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 parenthetical '(story progression shortcut)' makes the use case clear: use when you want to advance narrative progress quickly. No exclusions or explicit 'do not use when' guidance, and no alternative named, so it stops short of a 5.

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