athena_antibody_evolve

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

With no annotations provided, the description must independently disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool creates a variant, implying a mutation, but does not specify whether this is read-only, destructive, or involves side effects on the parent. It also fails to mention any requirements like the parent must exist or whether the operation is reversible, leaving critical behavioral information undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, making it concise. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, sacrificing necessary information for brevity. While there is no fluff, the description is not appropriately sized for a tool with 10 parameters and nested objects, as it lacks detail that would be essential for correct usage.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 4 required, nested objects) and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not define what a 'variant' entails, how the parent family is determined, or the roles of detector and repair. The description covers only a fraction of the context needed to invoke the tool effectively, leaving significant gaps.

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?

The input schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, placing a heavy burden on the tool description to explain them. The description only hints at 'parent_id' via 'parent's family' and 'ttl_hours' via 'optional expiry', but it does not explain the other required parameters such as 'signature', 'detector', or 'repair'. This minimal compensation is insufficient for an agent to understand how to populate the parameters correctly.

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 clearly states the tool's function: creating a distinct antibody variant within a parent's family. The verb 'Create' and the resource 'antibody variant' are specific, and the mention of 'parent's family' distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_antibody_select or athena_antibody_record_outcome, which focus on other aspects of the antibody lifecycle.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool names. For instance, it does not clarify when one should choose 'evolve' over 'select' or 'register', leaving the agent to infer the use case from the tool's name alone.

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