athena_artifact_lifecycle

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

The description discloses one behavioral trait: it preserves lineage and downstream dependencies during assignment. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to mention side effects, reversibility, permissions, or error conditions, making it incomplete.

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 directly states the core function without unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action and includes only essential information.

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 a complex nested schema with multiple fields, yet the description provides no guidance on parameter usage, expected output, or edge cases. No output schema exists, so the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving the agent under-informed.

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coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the artifact properties (age, reuse, novelty, evidence, superseded, critical_lineage, downstream_dependents). The agent cannot determine how to construct the 'artifacts' array from the description 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 clearly states the tool assigns lifecycle states (KEEP_ACTIVE, KEEP_REFERENCE, etc.) to artifacts using the specific verb 'Assign'. It names exact state categories, which distinguishes it from sibling tools and provides a clear purpose.

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 lacks any context about scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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