athena_rehydration_successor_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that stale or unverified shared state fails closed by default and that ties remain preserved, which are useful traits. However, it does not clarify side effects, permissions, or what a 'replayable routing-only successor baton' contains, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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 dense sentence with multiple clauses joined by semicolons, making it less accessible than a structured breakdown. It is not excessively long, but it is not front-loaded with a clear primary action; the main output (compile successor baton) appears at the end.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return shape, side effects, prerequisites, or how to interpret the 'successor baton'. The fail-closed statement adds operational context, but an agent lacks enough detail to invoke the tool correctly or understand the full behavior.

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 only 29%, and the description does not map its concepts to parameters. Terms like 'loop state digest' indirectly hint at expected_state_digest, but loop_id, policy, candidates, and completion are not explained in the description. The description fails to compensate for the schema's sparse documentation.

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 breaks down a multi-step operation (fresh-sync Git, verify digest, apply terminal gate, compile successor baton) with a specific verb+resource. However, terms like 'successor baton' and 'loop state digest' are domain jargon, and the tool is not clearly differentiated from siblings like athena_cycle_advance or athena_rehydration_advance except for the 'routing-only' qualifier.

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 vs. alternatives. The reference to 'the same witnessed terminal-closure gate used by advance' is a behavioral note, not a usage recommendation. The description does not mention when a successor preview is needed over a full advance or when to avoid it.

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