hai_recontract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses a major side effect ('revokes all leases') plus an authorization prerequisite (owner_ack=true). It does not mention irreversibility, failure behavior, or whether break_glass_marker bypasses the ack, but it is far more transparent than most tool descriptions.

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 filler: the action is front-loaded, and the required condition and dominant side effect follow immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given 7 parameters, 4 required, a nested changes object, and no annotations, the definition is too thin. It correctly highlights the main risk (lease revocation) but leaves break_glass_marker, mode, reason, and contract_version semantics unexplained, and offers no sequencing or alternative tool context.

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 clarifies owner_ack (must be true) and loosely implies changes is the diff. mission_id, contract_version, reason, mode, and break_glass_marker remain unexplained, which is a significant gap for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('visible field-level contract diff'), and adds decisive constraints: owner_ack must be true and all leases are revoked. It reads as a mutation distinct from read-only siblings like hai_get_contract, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 implies the tool should be used when you need to apply a field-level contract diff, and it states a hard precondition (owner_ack=true). However, it gives no when-not-to-use guidance, no context about sequencing with sibling tools, and no discussion of the break_glass or park/checkpoint alternatives.

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