athena_hug_fail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds a behavioral guarantee ('without fabricating output') and indicates a verification requirement ('witnessed'), but it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or what happens on success/failure. This is some value beyond the schema, but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and adds a meaningful constraint. Every word contributes value with no redundancy 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 write tool with 4 parameters (nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. The agent is left without terms like 'PLANNED HUGINV', what constitutes a failure, how to structure the witness object, or what the tool returns. The sibling tool list provides some context but does not fill these gaps.

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. However, it only implicitly references the 'witness' parameter via 'witnessed' and gives no meaning for invocation_id, reason, actor, or the witness.ref field. The agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the 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 uses the specific verb 'record' and identifies the resource ('witnessed executor failure for PLANNED HUGINV'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like athena_hug_complete or athena_hug_plan. The addition of 'without fabricating output' further sharpens the tool's purpose.

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 phrase 'witnessed executor failure' implies the tool should be used when a failure occurs, rather than success, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, so the guidance is only implied.

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