athena_commit_delta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior ('rejects stale expected VID' and avoids 'shadow mutation'), but does not explain side effects, return values, permissions, or failure modes. This is minimal transparency for a mutation 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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the verb phrase. The second sentence adds a crucial behavior. No wasted words, though the terseness contributes to overall vagueness.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not define 'shadow mutation', explain the expected VID mechanism, or describe what the response looks like. The agent would be left guessing about critical operational details.

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 adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema field names. The mention of 'expected VID' and 'delta' in the description is oblique and does not clarify their types, formats, or constraints. The agent must infer semantics from names 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Conditional object mutation' with a distinctive behavior of rejecting stale expected VID. This differentiates it from generic mutation tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools for comparison.

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 for conditional mutations with optimistic concurrency (expected VID check) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It fails to guide the agent on when this tool is preferred over siblings like athena_promote_mutation or athena_adopt_mutation.

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