athena_promote_mutation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses one behavioral consequence (global classes require adoption next cycle), but omits other side effects, permission requirements, or what happens with non-global classes. The provided detail adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. It is concise and easy to parse, though it could be expanded to include essential details without becoming bloated.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, parameter formats, or the full lifecycle of a mutation registration. The single behavioral note is helpful but leaves many operational aspects undisclosed.

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 explain any of the parameters (mutation_class, payload, source_eid, actor). There is a vague reference to 'global classes' which hints at mutation_class, but no concrete semantics are provided, leaving the agent to guess parameter meanings.

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: 'Register a discovered mutation', with an added detail about global classes requiring adoption. It identifies the tool's core purpose, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like athena_adopt_mutation or athena_pending_mutations.

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 usage context: global mutation classes trigger adoption by all active agents next cycle. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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