athena_register

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions 'create or reuse', hinting at idempotency, but does not explain side effects, error handling, or what happens to existing identities. This is inadequate 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is extremely terse for a tool with 10 parameters, though conciseness itself is not penalized other than by completeness.

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 high complexity (10 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), a one-sentence abstract description is grossly insufficient. It lacks context on the registration process, return values, and relationship to other tools.

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 offers no parameter explanations. It does not clarify the roles of the seven required fields (kind, domain, verb, object_name, method, input_contract, output_contract) or how they form a 'functional signature'.

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 identifies a specific action ('Create or reuse') and a distinct resource ('canonical capability identity' from a 'functional signature'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like athena_register_transform. However, the abstract terminology leaves some ambiguity about the exact nature of the capability identity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for registering capability identities, but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with similar registration tools.

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