athena_cohesion_coalition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does well: it discloses persistence, the greedy OFFER-capacity algorithm, and the advisory-only, side-effect-free nature regarding presence, claims, membership, and authority. It does not, however, mention authentication/authorization requirements or error/failure behavior.

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 dense sentence with no filler; each clause adds substantive detail. It loses a point because the heavy use of jargon (Message Board, NEEDs, OFFER capacity) and a long list of exclusions makes it somewhat harder to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description provides high-level intent and important exclusions but omits critical invocation details such as parameter meanings, return value shape, failure conditions, and how OFFER capacity is supplied. It is adequate for selection but not for reliable invocation.

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 the 7 undocumented parameters. It only indirectly references need_ids via 'NEEDs' and offers via 'OFFER capacity,' leaving remote, exit_criteria, rendezvous_refs, max_participants, and the required identifiers unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build and persist a Message Board-backed campaign/coalition proposal over multiple active NEEDs.' It clearly differentiates this advisory tool from siblings that create presence, claims, party membership, scheduler authority, or execution authority.

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 use when a non-binding proposal across multiple active NEEDs is needed, and explicitly notes it creates no presence/claims/party membership/etc., which helps an agent avoid this tool when actual authority or execution is required. However, it does not name alternative tools or give explicit 'when not to use' instructions.

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