athena_projection_compensate

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does surface several non-obvious behaviors: it only applies to 'active' JSPACE edges, uses 'semantic-head CAS' (suggesting compare-and-swap semantics), and explicitly excludes Git compensation. However, it does not disclose whether the inverse removes edges, disables them, or restores a prior state, nor does it mention any destructive consequence or permission requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about Git compensation adds useful boundary information without being verbose. It loses a point because the heavy use of domain jargon reduces readability, but it is still economically written.

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 complexity of the tool (mutation, no annotations, no output schema, dense domain vocabulary), the description is not complete enough. It omits what a 'projection' is, what 'compensate' concretely does to the topology, how CAS interacts with expected_semantic_eid, and what the caller should expect post-invocation. The presence of many sibling tools further raises the need for clearer context.

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 for the lack of inline parameter documentation. It only implicitly ties 'projection_id' to the phrase 'created by one topology projection'; it does not clarify 'expected_semantic_eid' (presumably the CAS token) or 'actor'. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly build a request.

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 action ('apply the explicit semantic inverse') and the target resource ('active JSPACE edges created by one topology projection'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_projection_prepare. The context 'under semantic-head CAS' adds specificity, though the jargon may limit clarity for general-purpose agents.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like athena_projection_prepare, athena_topology_rollback, or athena_topology_apply. The only usage hint is the offhand note that 'Git compensation remains separately surfaced,' which implies a division of responsibilities but does not explain the broader workflow or prerequisites.

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