athena_deployment_assess_canary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the decision logic (missing metrics HOLD, thin evidence ROLLBACK, failed gates ROLLBACK), but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or what permissions are required.

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 concise sentence that fully states the purpose and decision criteria without redundant words. It front-loads the verb and resource and uses a clear three-part structure.

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?

The tool has nested parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain the expected structure of baseline/canary, how thresholds are used, or what the return value looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%. The description does not name or explain the 'baseline', 'canary', or 'thresholds' parameters. It hints at threshold concepts (sample size, window, error rate, restart gates) but does not map them to schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Evaluate supplied external canary observations' and clearly defines the decision outcomes (HOLD/ROLLBACK). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_deployment_assess_quiescence and athena_deployment_validate.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. Context is implied by the tool name and the decision criteria, but there are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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