hai_authorize_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the lease is time-bounded and tied to a specific contract version, but omits side effects, permission requirements, failure modes, idempotency, and what happens on invalid inputs. This is only partial transparency.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the core action and key constraints, which is appropriately concise, even though more detail is needed elsewhere.

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?

This is a 9-parameter, 8-required tool with zero schema parameter descriptions and no annotations, yet the description provides only a high-level summary. An agent cannot construct a correct call because most required parameters are semantically opaque and there is no guidance on expected results, criteria IDs, roles, or return value semantics.

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 adds context for mission_id and contract_version ('exact contract version'), and 'time-bounded' hints at duration_minutes, but it leaves the other seven parameters undocumented. An agent cannot infer the intended meaning of role, contribution, expected_result, criterion_ids, capabilities, or agent_identity.

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 identifies the action ('Grant') and the resource ('a time-bounded session lease'), and ties it to mission ID and contract version. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any alternative.

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 it should be used when a session lease needs to be granted, but it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over related siblings like hai_open_mission, hai_mission_start, or hai_get_contract. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions.

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