athena_stigmergy_update

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and mutation behavior. It mentions 'evaporation' as a decay mechanism, but does not state that the tool modifies state, what the return value is, or whether changes are reversible. This is insufficient for a state-updating 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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and target. It is concise and contains no filler, though it is dense with domain jargon.

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 complexity of the tool (5 top-level parameters, a nested observations object with 8 fields, no output schema, and no annotations), a one-sentence description is entirely inadequate. It fails to explain how to construct inputs, what the tool returns, or the semantics of the evaporation process.

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 description adds meaning by mapping evidence, reuse, downstream, age, staleness, and contradiction to the update logic, which partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage. However, it does not explain deposit_gain, evaporation_rate, current_score, or the structure of the observations object, leaving key parameters under-defined.

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 identifies a specific action (update artifact/routing priority) and outlines the mechanism (reinforcement plus evaporation). This distinguishes it from simpler reinforcement tools like athena_pheromone_reinforce, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling reinforcement/pheromone tools. The description explains what it does, but not the selection criteria or context that would call for this tool specifically.

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