athena_delayed_credit_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a persistence operation and a subtle interpretive note about causation, but it does not mention idempotency, failure behavior, side effects, permissions, or whether the record is appended or overwritten.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing caveat 'delay alone is not causation' is terse and somewhat cryptic, but it does not detract from the overall brevity.

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 complexity of 8 parameters (5 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to enable confident invocation. It omits parameter details, return value, and relationship to sibling credit-related tools.

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 only hints at concepts like 'confidence', 'discount', and 'delay' without explaining individual parameters such as actor, regime, outcome_key, or outcome_delta. This is insufficient guidance for correctly populating all 8 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 clearly identifies the action ('Persist') and the resource ('one confidence-weighted delayed action credit') with an explicit temporal discount. It distinguishes itself as a write operation relative to similar-titled tools like athena_delayed_credit_summary, but does not explicitly name that counterpart.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'delay alone is not causation' is a conceptual caveat, not usage direction, and no sibling tools are referenced as exclusions or alternatives.

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