athena_deployment_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: fails closed, does not contact infrastructure, does not resolve secrets, and does not move traffic. This is valuable beyond the schema. It doesn't explain success/failure outputs, but the core safety-relevant behavior is transparent.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Every word adds meaning.

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 validation tool with a single nested object parameter and no output schema, the description leaves the bundle structure undefined and never states what the validation result looks like. Given the opaque sibling set, the description is not sufficient for a new agent to construct a correct call.

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?

The schema has one 'bundle' object with 0% description coverage. The description references 'BUNDLE.2 intent' but never defines what the bundle object must contain or what 'intent' means. The agent cannot infer parameter semantics from this description.

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 names a specific action ('fail-closed validation'), a specific resource ('ATHENA.DEPLOYMENT.BUNDLE.2 intent'), and scopes it clearly ('without contacting infrastructure, resolving secrets, or moving traffic'). This distinguishes it from sibling deployment tools like assess_canary or verify_receipt.

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 gives clear context: this is a safe validation that does not touch infrastructure, so an agent can infer to use it before performing side-effectful validation or deployment steps. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it earns a 4 not a 5.

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