athena_apply_transform_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does reveal a non-obvious behavior: closed routes automatically measure holonomy only when all edges are derivational, and LOOKUP-containing loops are marked N/A rather than promoted. This adds useful context beyond a basic 'apply route' statement, but it lacks details on side effects, permissions, error cases, or what happens for open routes, so transparency is only moderate.

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 two sentences with no fluff, and the primary action ('Compose and execute') is front-loaded. Each clause adds meaningful information, particularly the edge-case handling for closed routes. However, the heavy use of domain jargon and compact notation may hinder readability, but it's appropriately sized.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain what the tool returns and the expected input format beyond the schema. It explains the closed-route behavior but doesn't mention return values, how a route should be specified as an array of strings, or any prerequisites. For a tool with 4 parameters and a non-trivial concept, this description is incomplete.

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 for explaining parameters. The description references 'coordinate route' and the C_i0->...->C_ik notation, but it doesn't explain the role of subject_id, route contents, actor, or source_value. No parameter semantics are provided, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and format of each property, especially the route array elements.

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: 'Compose and execute a coordinate route' with a specific path notation C_i0->...->C_ik. This indicates it handles sequences of transforms, distinguishing it from single-transform tools like athena_apply_transform. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when to prefer this one, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 implies this is for executing coordinate routes and includes guidance on how closed routes are handled (holonomy only for derivational edges, LOOKUP-containing loops marked N/A). It gives context on the behavior that users can expect, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so guidance is mostly implied.

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