athena_party_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: the event is provenance-only, does not prove result truth, and earns zero XP. It also specifies membership constraints, which is substantial context beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second explains constraints and consequences. No redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, the description gives a solid overview but leaves some parameter meanings implicit (e.g., remote, witness_ref). It also does not describe return values or error behavior. While the core purpose is clear, more detail could be added for full completeness.

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. It indirectly explains sender, goal_id, recipients, and evidence_kind (RESULT/VERIFY) via constraints and event type. However, parameters like remote, result_ref, witness_ref, and party_id receive no explicit explanation.

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 posts an 'attributable party RESULT or VERIFY provenance event through canonical Message Board V1.' This specifies the verb (post), resource (party result/verify event), and context (canonical Message Board V1), distinguishing it from general party messaging tools like athena_party_message.

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?

It provides explicit conditions: sender must hold the board claim, goal must be assigned, recipients must be current party members. It also notes that posting earns zero XP, implying use for provenance rather than rewards. However, no alternative tools or 'when not to use' are explicitly mentioned.

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