Record mission

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: creation if none exists, replacement requiring a reason, superseding rather than overwriting, archival of the previous mission as a claim, and no-op on identical text. These details are consistent with the idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations, and they add meaningful behavioral context.

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 dense but well organized: purpose, core behavior, edge cases, and routing to alternatives all appear in a logical order without redundant phrasing. Every sentence contributes either a behavioral rule or selection guidance.

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 tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the core operation, edge cases, required inputs for replacement, store/repo behavior, and sibling-tool selection. No critical information an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with solid per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying when reason is required, how the project parameter is resolved in a repo, and that the previous mission travels as a claim with the reason, which enriches the meaning of reason and project beyond the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set or replace the project's mission', then defines exactly what the mission is (the single line at the top of every resume context). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming capture and create_project as alternatives, so an agent can select it confidently.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this rather than capture with type mission, and use create_project instead only when the project does not exist yet. It also states the required-reason rule for replacement and the project-omission rule inside a repo, leaving no ambiguity about invocation context.

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