athena_collective_restructure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Choose' without explaining whether the tool performs the restructuring, returns a recommendation, or has side effects. It does not mention return values, thresholds, or what FISSION/FUSE/HOLD actually do in practice.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. It lacks any structured breakdown of inputs, outputs, or decision logic, making it merely a terse summary rather than a helpful guide.

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 a nested metrics object with 9 properties, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain how the metrics influence the decision, what the output looks like, or how to interpret the chosen operation, leaving critical gaps for correct 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only partially compensates. It mentions several metrics (contagion, cohesion, complementarity, etc.) but omits size_pressure and interface_maturity, and uses 'coordination pressure' which does not match the schema property 'coordination_overhead'. This could confuse an agent.

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 chooses among FISSION/FUSE/HOLD operations based on a set of metrics. It is specific to restructuring a collective and distinct from sibling tools like athena_collective_plan or allocate, though it does not explicitly detail what each operation entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as athena_collective_health or athena_collective_plan. It lacks context about prerequisites, whether this is a recommendation or an execution, and when not to use it.

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