hai_park_item

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behavioral traits: 'Grants no execution right' and 'contract unchanged', which signal that the tool won't alter execution or contract state. However, it does not clarify persistence, authorization requirements, or what 'park' actually does beyond these constraints.

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 sentences with no redundancy, the primary action is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes necessary information. This is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 5 required parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain parameter semantics, differentiate among siblings, or describe operational side effects beyond contract and execution, leaving the agent to guess how to correctly populate the call.

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% across 5 required parameters, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It mentions 'full context' but never explains what idea, rationale, mission_id, trigger_event, or origin_session_id should contain or how they relate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Park') and a clear resource ('mission-linked idea') and adds the scope 'with full context'. It also differentiates from execution-oriented siblings by stating it grants no execution right, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly-named hai_park sibling.

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 when to use it: to store a mission-linked idea with full context while intentionally avoiding execution or contract changes. However, it provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or comparison to siblings like hai_park, hai_intake, or hai_propose_next_step.

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