athena_claim_promote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (exact one-step advancement) and per-step evidence requirements, which is useful. However, it does not mention failure modes, reversibility, side effects, or what happens when prerequisites are unmet—important for a state-changing 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 extremely concise—a single core statement and a compact three-line mapping. Every symbol and phrase carries meaning, and the most important constraint ('exactly one') is front-loaded. No 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?

Given the complexity of the schema (nested test object, evidence array with kinds, canonical_authority, actor) and lack of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how parameters interact, when the test object is needed, what actor means, or what the tool returns, leaving a substantial comprehension gap.

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 only implicitly references two of six parameters (evidence and canonical_authority via the transition map). Parameters like claim_id, target_y, test, and actor are left unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their roles from the schema 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 specifies a clear action ('Advance exactly one authority step') with explicit scope ('exactly one'), and maps the three possible transitions using intuitive arrow notation. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, so it misses the top score, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 context by stating prerequisites for each transition (?->+ needs verified evidence, etc.), but it does not explicitly say when to favor this tool over alternatives like athena_claim_challenge or athena_claim_register. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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