athena_policy_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two key behaviors: rejecting stale expected_version (optimistic concurrency) and recording rollback history. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error handling on rejection, or whether the update is atomic/persistent. These additions add value but leave some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 purpose and then adds two specific behavioral details. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary fluff. It is appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain what 'bounded' or 'online' means, what the return value is, or how errors like stale version rejection are surfaced. The description covers the core purpose but leaves many operational and behavioral details unspecified.

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, but it only hints at the meaning of expected_version and observed_reward. The other five parameters (l2, actor, scope, learning_rate, features) are completely unexplained. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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 performs a versioned, bounded online policy update from an observed reward. It distinguishes itself from siblings like policy_rollback and policy_score by emphasizing the update action and the observed-reward input. The specific behaviors of rejecting stale versions and recording rollback history further clarify its unique role.

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 when to use the tool (when you have an observed reward and want to update the policy with versioning), but it does not provide explicit exclusions or mention alternative tools. No guidance is given about when to prefer this over the rollback or score tools. This is an implied usage rather than a clear directive.

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