athena_adopt_mutation

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a mutation ('Record actual adoption') but does not mention side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or return values. The distinction from 'delivery/visibility' adds slight behavioral context but is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It states the core action and provides a distinguishing qualifier, earning its place without any wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks critical context: when to use this over closely related sibling tools (like athena_promote_mutation), what constitutes 'adoption,' and any prerequisites. This leaves significant gaps in usability.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. While 'by an agent' and 'a global mutation' loosely map to the two parameters (agent, mutation_id), no details are given about format, semantics, or constraints, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 'Record' with a clear resource: 'actual adoption of a global mutation by an agent.' It also distinguishes itself from 'mere delivery/visibility,' which helps differentiate from potential sibling tools, though it does not name a specific alternative.

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 phrase 'distinct from mere delivery/visibility' implies when this tool is appropriate (actual adoption, not just delivery), but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus specific alternatives (e.g., athena_promote_mutation). No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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