hai_close_mission

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 completion requires verified evidence and abandonment requires owner_ack, but it does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, validation rules, or what happens to the mission after closure. This is a significant gap for a state-changing close operation.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the two closure modes. However, the extreme brevity creates ambiguity—'Complete' lacks an explicit object and 'reason' is not tied to a schema parameter—so the conciseness comes at the cost of necessary clarity.

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 6-parameter tool with 4 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no parameter explanations. The description does not mention contract_version, mission_id, outcome_summary, closure values, or the format of evidence, and it provides no guidance for the substantial required inputs. It is not adequate for reliable invocation.

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 by explaining parameters. It does map 'evidence' to verified per-criterion evidence and 'owner_ack' to owner acknowledgement, but it mentions a 'reason' that does not correspond clearly to any parameter, and it ignores required fields like mission_id, contract_version, outcome_summary, and the closure value semantics.

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 conveys two distinct closure actions—completing with verified per-criterion evidence or abandoning with owner acknowledgement and reason—so an agent can infer that this tool finalizes a mission in one of two modes. It is clear enough, but it does not explicitly name the mission resource or meaningfully distinguish itself from siblings like hai_stop or hai_recover.

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 two internal closure paths but no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as hai_recover, hai_park, or hai_stop. It does not state conditions that should lead an agent to choose another sibling tool.

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