athena_cycle_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that starting only creates state and does not claim later phases, which is a valuable and non-obvious side effect. This exceeds the bare minimum, though it omits details like idempotency or return 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every clause serves a purpose, including the caveat about state creation.

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 complex schema (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what the task_ref should reference, the structure of the config, or what happens after the run starts. The brief caveat provides some context but does not fill the gaps for a tool this complex.

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 parameter meaning. It mentions 'task seed' and 'explicit phase configuration,' which loosely maps to 'seed' and 'config,' but leaves 'task_ref' and 'actor' unexplained. The mapping is indirect and incomplete for the required parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('persisted ATHENA.CYCLE.1 whole-organism run'), and clarifies the input sources ('task seed and explicit phase configuration'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling cycle tools like athena_cycle_advance or athena_cycle_state by focusing on the initialization action.

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 provides clear context: this tool starts a persisted cycle run. It also includes an implicit exclusion by noting that it 'does not claim later semantic phases executed,' which helps avoid confusion with phase-advancing tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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