athena_deployment_activation_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key safety behavior: 'It never deploys or grants cutover authority,' which is valuable. However, it does not explain whether the tool writes any state (e.g., persists the plan), what permissions are required, or what the output format is.

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 tightly written two-sentence structure, front-loading the core action and constraints in the first sentence and a critical non-behavior in the second. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a complex tool with 11 parameters (7 required), no annotations, and no output schema. The description only provides high-level purpose and a safety disclaimer, leaving parameter semantics, return value, and operational prerequisites unexplained. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional documentation.

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 does not explain any of the 11 parameters. Terms like 'source-bound,' 'digest-pinned,' and 'isolated-canary' hint at potential parameter mappings (e.g., source_head, state_snapshot_digest, canary_percent) but are left ambiguous. The agent must make unguided inferences to correctly populate required fields.

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's purpose: to compile a PLAN_ONLY, source-bound, digest-pinned, isolated-canary, CAS single-writer cutover plan. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from deployment tools by stating 'It never deploys or grants cutover authority,' making the action and scope unambiguous.

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 establishes a clear usage context: this tool is for planning only, not execution. The phrase 'It never deploys or grants cutover authority' serves as an explicit when-not-to-use signal. However, it does not name specific alternative tools, so it lacks full alternative guidance.

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