athena_equivalence_observe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key rule: EQUIVALENT requires witnessed sameness across every preservation dimension, and contradictory heads become CONFLICT. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing relations), permissions, reversibility, or return behavior, leaving significant gaps for a write operation.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—yet packs essential meaning: the action, the relation types, the context, and a critical constraint. There is no fluff or repetition; every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a solid high-level overview but omits important operational details such as what happens on success, how 'same' vs 'different' exactly structure the input, and what 'CONFLICT' means in terms of stored state. It is adequate for a rough understanding but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining semantic roles: 'unordered pair' maps to left_id/right_id, 'declared dedup context' to context_id, 'witnessed sameness' to witness, and 'preservation dimensions' to the 'same' object's required fields. It does not explicitly name 'actor' or 'different', but the overall semantics are reasonably conveyed.

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 with a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('verified EQUIVALENT or DISTINCT relation for an unordered pair in a declared dedup context'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like athena_equivalence_state (query) and athena_equivalence_resolve_conflict (conflict handling) by focusing on the recording action and the specific relation types.

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 implies usage context: when needing to record a verified equivalence or distinct relation in a dedup context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The 'declared dedup context' hints at a precondition but is not elaborated.

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