athena_party_form

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully reveals that formation 'emits a durable party event but earns no XP', which are non-obvious side effects. It also states the leader prerequisite. It could add details about permissions or reversibility, but for a creation action it provides useful transparency beyond the tool name.

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 two sentences long and each sentence earns its place: the first states the core action and context, the second adds a precondition and key behavioral outcomes. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 9 parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It covers the basic purpose and one precondition, but leaves all parameter semantics, return behavior, and edge cases unexplained. An agent could not reliably construct a valid invocation with only this description and the bare schema.

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 does not mention any of the 9 parameters, including the 4 required ones (party_id, leader, goals, leader_goal_refs). The description adds no meaning to the input schema, leaving agents to guess the semantics of fields like role, remote, purpose, capacity, and capabilities. This is a critical gap for a tool with this many 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 clearly identifies the operation with a specific verb ('Form') and a specific resource ('Git-shared multi-goal party on top of Message Board V1'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_party_join, athena_party_list, and athena_party_state, which cover different phases of a party's lifecycle.

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 provides a clear precondition ('leader must already be actively present on the shared board') and specifies the context ('on top of Message Board V1'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the action of forming a party makes its role distinct from joining, listing, or observing parties, so usage is fairly clear.

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