athena_prompt_promote

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions the promotion is gated and targets the 'canonical Git prompt module', suggesting a mutating operation. However, it does not state permissions, reversibility, failure behavior, or what 'CAS-promote' entails. The description is not misleading, but it leaves significant behavioral aspects unexplained.

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 action ('CAS-promote') and is free of fluff. It is appropriately concise for its purpose, though the unexplained 'CAS' jargon slightly reduces clarity. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, but the description is very short. It does not explain how to specify gates, what the refs mean, or what the function returns. High-level purpose is clear, but operational completeness is lacking for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional 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. It only hints that 'regression, adversarial, replay' relate to experiment_refs and 'evidence' to evidence_refs, but does not explicitly map them. It provides no meaning for candidate_ref, expected_git_head, actor, or witness, leaving these parameters ambiguous. The description adds almost no value beyond the parameter names.

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: 'CAS-promote a tested candidate into its canonical Git prompt module'. This specifies a concrete verb and resource, distinguishing it from generic tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like athena_prompt_publish or athena_prompt_propose, so it lacks direct sibling comparison.

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 phrase 'only with regression, adversarial, replay and evidence gates' implies a clear precondition for use—the gates must be satisfied before promotion. This gives some usage guidance but does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios. It is implied that this is for post-testing promotion, but not fully explicit.

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