athena_failure_antibody_register

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'persists' data, but does not explain overwrite/idempotency behavior, permissions, return values, side effects on existing antibodies, or whether the bundle is expected to be complete before registration.

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, dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key verb and resource, then lists the stored components compactly, making efficient use of space.

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 tool has 8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain return behavior, prerequisites, the meaning of `actor`/`scope`, or how this registration relates to other antibody lifecycle tools.

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%, and the description compensates by naming most parameters (signature, trigger, detector, repair, evidence, regression_refs), but it omits `actor` and `scope`. It adds conceptual grouping but lacks detail on nested object structures or relationships between parameters.

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 'persist' and identifies the resource as a 'diagnosed failure' converted into a reusable bundle, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like `athena_failure_antibody_match` or `athena_antibody_evolve`. The enumeration of signature, trigger, detector, repair, evidence, and regression/replay references gives a precise sense of the tool's scope.

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 when a diagnosed failure needs to be persisted, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. With closely related siblings like `athena_failure_antibody_match`, more explicit disambiguation would have been valuable.

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