athena_credit_assign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that credit assignment is uncertainty-bearing, that weak designs only yield associational conclusions (a caveat about interpretation), and that residual outcome is preserved (implying non-destructive behavior). This adds meaningful context beyond the basic action.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence states the action, and the second adds a caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 complex tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits critical details like the meaning of outcome_key, the structure of the design object, what regime/actor represent, and what the tool returns. The caveats are useful but do not compensate for the missing operational context.

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 explain parameters. It only implicitly references 'outcome_delta' and 'interventions' but leaves outcome_key, design, regime, and actor unaddressed. No parameter descriptions exist in the schema, so the agent has insufficient information to fill these fields correctly.

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 ('Assign') and resource ('uncertainty-bearing intervention credit') derived from an observed outcome delta. It distinguishes from siblings like athena_credit_summary (summary) and athena_delayed_credit_record (delayed) by specifying the immediate credit assignment mechanism.

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 usage when you have an outcome delta and interventions to assign credit, and notes that weak designs remain associational. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like athena_delayed_credit_record or athena_interaction_credit, nor does it provide exclusions.

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