AtlaSent — Evaluate Action

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds the three-way decision semantics and the requirement to verify the returned permit_token before proceeding. It does not clarify token lifecycle details like single-use or expiry, but the core behavioral contract is well disclosed.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the invocation timing and packs the full decision contract into a compact, scannable structure. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the three possible return values and the required post-call verification step. It omits edge-case behavior (e.g., error handling or token validation mechanics), but is sufficiently complete for a single-action evaluation gate.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level guidance, which is acceptable given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Call this BEFORE performing any sensitive action') and the return contract (allow/deny/hold), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling tools atlasent_evaluate_many or atlasent_evaluate_stream, so an agent may not know which evaluator to select based on description alone.

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 gives a concrete trigger ('BEFORE performing any sensitive action') and explicit follow-up behavior for each decision branch (verify permit_token at the execution boundary, MUST NOT proceed on deny, route for review on hold). It does not mention exclusions or when to prefer batch/stream alternatives.

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