athena_elder_observe

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

The description clearly states that the tool updates authority, which is a non-obvious behavior given the 'observe' name. However, with no annotations to fall back on, it omits details about state changes, idempotency, error conditions, or return behavior, leaving the agent underinformed about side effects.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds meaning, with no repetition 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It fails to convey the semantics of the outcomes object, the role of actor/scope, or the expected preconditions, making it insufficient for reliable invocation in an agent context.

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 explain parameters, but it only indirectly references entity_id and outcomes. The optional 'actor' and 'scope' parameters are completely unexplained, and the structure of the 'outcomes' object is not described, severely limiting parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and identifies a clear resource ('longitudinal evidence-backed authority for an entity') with outcome sources. It distinguishes itself from many siblings by focusing on authority updates, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or scope boundaries.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like athena_antibody_record_outcome or athena_credit_assign. The description gives no context about prerequisites, expected prior state, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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