athena_mck_model_bridge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is 'lossy' and that it 'retains residue/provenance' and 'never asserts cultural identity/equivalence,' which are important behavioral traits. However, it omits other behavioral details like return format, side effects, or handling of unmapped fields, so transparency is partial.

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, with the core action front-loaded. However, the unexplained acronym 'MMTB' and dense jargon (residue/provenance, cultural identity/equivalence) reduce clarity, though there is no wasted verbiage.

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 6 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema or annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't cover return values, behavior for unmapped fields, or examples, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any parameter explicitly; 'field transport' hints at field_map but doesn't clarify the roles of source_model, target_model, invariants, source_ref, or target_ref. The parameter names are self-evident but the description adds little.

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 states it performs 'explicit lossy field transport between scoped models,' indicating a specific operation with a clear resource and scope. It also adds distinguishing constraints ('retain residue/provenance and never assert cultural identity/equivalence'), which differentiates it from sibling transport tools. However, the jargon ('scoped models', 'field transport') is not plainly explained, so it's not fully clear to an agent.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions constraints but not use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. No sibling alternatives are named, leaving the agent to guess when 'lossy field transport' is appropriate.

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