polaris_fitness_targets

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: create yields an ACTIVE record, transition is an explicit auditable change whose history stays queryable, and the permitted status lifecycle is enumerated. It omits permission/auth requirements, conflict or error behavior, and any rate/limit semantics, which keeps it below a 5.

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 one-line definition, then organized as a tight per-action bullet list, with the target JSON shape last. Every line adds information, though the response-shape block makes it longer than strictly minimal.

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 13-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description provides the action/parameter matrix and the returned target JSON shape, which is what an agent needs to call and interpret it. Gaps remain around auth requirements, error cases, and how list pagination behaves with all_pages versus cursor.

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%, yet the description accounts for all 13 parameters by binding each to its action, adding enum examples the schema lacks (target_kind SERVICE/DATABASE/QUEUE, criticality CRITICAL/HIGH), and noting external_reference is an object and limit/cursor/all_pages apply to list. It compensates fully for the empty schema descriptions.

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 specific verb+resource ('Manage fitness targets') and immediately defines the domain object as 'systems (services, databases, queues, ...) a squad is accountable for', which is far more than a tautology. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings such as polaris_fitness_functions or polaris_waivers, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

Each action (list/get/create/transition/history) is paired with its required parameters, which effectively maps intent to invocation, and transition is annotated as the 'explicit, auditable lifecycle change' path. There is still no explicit when-not or named alternative action for lifecycle edits, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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