polaris_fitness_function_templates

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: duplicate names yield 409, adopt produces a DRAFT the squad may adapt, and the tribe retains no ownership. It omits auth/permission requirements and pagination cursor semantics beyond listing the params.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then structured as action-to-parameter bullets plus a template JSON shape. Efficient, though the final template JSON line is somewhat terse and assumes reader familiarity.

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?

Covers the three actions, required params, key constraints (409 duplicates, DRAFT status), and the returned template shape via the template JSON. With no output schema and zero schema coverage, this is nearly sufficient; minor gaps remain around error cases and permissions.

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 and largely does: it names required parameters per action (tribe_id, name, template_id, squad_id), clarifies optional params (limit/cursor/all_pages, target_ids, reason), and explains definition as a FitnessDefinition with camelCase keys matching polaris_fitness_functions. It still doesn't describe every one of the 12 parameters' types or constraints.

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?

States a concrete verb (Manage) and resource (tribe-published fitness-function templates), then enumerates three distinct actions (list/publish/adopt). Distinguishes itself from sibling polaris_fitness_functions by scoping to tribe-published templates versus plain fitness functions.

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?

Maps each action to its required parameters and notes that adopt creates a squad-owned DRAFT while the tribe retains no ownership, which guides action selection. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over polaris_fitness_functions, leaving a small gap.

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