athena_branch_review

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It does state that the operation moves a branch (state change) and requires a verified trigger, which is useful. But it doesn't mention reversibility, error behavior, required permissions, or what happens if the branch is not hibernated or trigger is unverified. This leaves significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 gets straight to the point. It contains no filler or redundant information, and the action is front-loaded.

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 provide a fairly complete operational picture. It fails to explain the meaning of basis_id, the verification process, what REVIEW status entails for the branch, or any postconditions. This is incomplete for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 schema provides no description for branch_id, basis_id, trigger, or actor, and the description only indirectly explains trigger (must be of type new_evidence/new_gap/bridge_demand and 'verified'). It implies branch_id refers to the hibernated branch but does not explain basis_id or actor. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more, but it only explains a portion of the parameters.

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 moves a branch into REVIEW status, specifying the resource (hibernated branch) and the condition (verified trigger of specific types). This distinguishes it from branch-related siblings like athena_branch_list, athena_branch_observe, and athena_branch_state, which read state rather than change it.

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 a clear precondition: the tool should only be used when a verified new_evidence/new_gap/bridge_demand trigger exists. This serves as a when-to-use guideline. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or contrast with other tools like branch_state or branch_observe, so it falls short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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