athena_prompt_propose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—that the tool does not activate or promote—but doesn't explain side effects, prerequisites, or how it interacts with version control (despite fields like rollback and expected_git_head). This is moderate disclosure but incomplete.

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 very short and front-loads the core action, but the unexplained 'CAS' prefix and the lack of any parameter context make it slightly less efficient than it could be. It's still concise with no wasted words.

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?

For a tool with 12 parameters (7 required), no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the proposal event is, how to populate required parameters, what happens on success, or what 'versioned' means in practice.

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 adds no information about any of the 12 parameters. It fails to explain the meaning or usage of required fields like module_id, defect, falsifier, rollback, or expected_git_head, leaving the agent to guess.

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 writes a versioned prompt candidate plus proposal event, using a specific verb ('write') and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting it never activates or promotes itself, differentiating it from tools like athena_prompt_activate and athena_prompt_promote.

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 by stating the proposal never activates or promotes itself, providing a clear exclusion. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide context on when to choose this tool, leaving the usage guidelines implied rather than explicit.

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