athena_prompt_activate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions 'CAS-activate' and 'scope-limited overlay' without explaining side effects, prerequisites like the git head, reversibility, or what changes state. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and key constraints. It is concise with no unnecessary words, earning a top score for structure.

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?

With 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this sparse description is inadequate. It omits how scope is defined, what the witness object requires, the role of expected_git_head, and what successful activation returns or changes, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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 parameter names or meanings (e.g., candidate_ref, scope, witness). It provides no parameter-level semantics beyond the tool's overall purpose, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('CAS-activate') with a clear target ('TESTED prompt candidate') and specifies the mode ('scope-limited overlay') and condition ('after an observed PASS witness'). This distinguishes it from related prompt tools by emphasizing the tested and witnessed prerequisite.

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 clear context for when to use: after a PASS witness and for a TESTED candidate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it lacks the exclusionary guidance needed for a 5.

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