athena_deployment_verify_cutover_hold

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that PASS only verifies supplied packet bytes and does not perform live cluster observation, authority verification, cutover, or activation receipt actions, preventing misuse. It does not mention side effects or error behavior, but for a verification tool that is a minor gap.

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 compact at two sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Replay...'), and each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid high-level purpose and boundaries, but lacks details on failure behavior and the specific meaning of each expected binding. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete for a complex tool.

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. It introduces the concept of 'exact expected bindings' which groups all expected_* parameters, and 'supplied packet bytes' for the packet field. However, it does not explain any individual parameter's meaning, leaving cryptic names like expected_canary_witness_digest and expected_quiescence_assessment_digest unexplained.

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 replays a specific packet type against exact expected bindings, and explicitly lists what it is not (current cluster observation, authority verification, cutover, activation receipt), distinguishing it from sibling deployment-related tools.

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 negative clauses provide useful guidance on when not to use this tool (not for live observation, authority checks, etc.), implying it is for offline packet verification. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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