hai_mission_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only that the tool is a thin wrapper over hai_open_mission. It does not state the side effects of starting a mission, any permissions needed, or reversibility, which is significant for a start action.

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 core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The compact size is appropriate for a simple wrapper tool.

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 7-parameter tool with no parameter descriptions and no annotations, the description is too thin. It provides the key wrapper relationship but fails to cover required fields and behavioral effects, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly from this text alone.

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, but it only mentions problem, artifact, and time limit. It omits two required parameters (owner, done_criteria) and gives no semantics for non_goals or constraints, leaving agents undersupported.

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 states a specific action (fast start of a mission) and precise inputs (problem, artifact, time limit), and explicitly distinguishes itself from hai_open_mission as a thin wrapper. An agent can tell this is the quick variant without opening the schema.

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?

It frames when this tool is appropriate ('Fast start') and names hai_open_mission as the canonical contract it wraps, implying the alternative for full control. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or switch to another sibling.

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