athena_register_transform

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about mode restrictions and prerequisites (program and metric), but it does not disclose side effects, return behavior, error conditions, or whether the registration persists. This is some meaningful context, but 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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. The first sentence defines the core purpose, and the second adds a critical constraint. Every word earns its place given the dense technical content.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description is far too brief to be complete: it doesn't explain the modes in detail, parameter formats, how to construct the 'safe declarative program', or what the response looks like. It provides only a skeletal framing for an operation that likely requires significant additional specification.

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?

The schema has 10 parameters and 0% description coverage, so the description must significantly compensate. It does connect 'program' and 'metric' to derivational mode requirements and implies src_chart/dst_chart via the T_ij:C_i->C_j notation. However, the remaining 6+ parameters (actor, status, loss_model, operator_oid, operator_vid, etc.) are entirely unexplained, leaving a major semantic gap.

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's action: 'Register a typed coordinate transform T_ij:C_i->C_j', using a specific verb and resource with a precise mathematical signature. It distinguishes itself from siblings like athena_apply_transform by focusing on registration rather than application or navigation.

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 explains that LOOKUP is 'navigational only' and that derivational modes require 'a safe declarative program and explicit comparison metric', giving clear conditions for use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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