athena_topology_project_jspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: it is a 'recoverable saga, not an atomic cross-store transaction', and it optionally checkpoint Git by expected-head CAS. This informs the agent about non-atomicity and recovery capabilities, which is significant context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the primary action first. The second sentence adds essential context about the saga nature. Every word earns its place.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat terse. It provides the key saga context and preconditions but omits details like return values, error handling, or the meaning of dry_run/actor parameters. Overall, it gives a high-level understanding but lacks completeness for full autonomous invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'expected-head CAS' and 'topology+semantic CAS preflight', which gives hints about parameters like expected_git_head, expected_topology_version, and expected_semantic_eid, but it does not explicitly explain individual parameters or their roles.

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 explicitly states the action ('Apply'), the target ('topology projection to canonical JSPACE'), and the precondition ('after topology+semantic CAS preflight'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_projection_prepare or athena_topology_apply by emphasizing the 'prepared' projection and post-preflight step.

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 phrase 'after topology+semantic CAS preflight' implies when to use this tool, suggesting a specific sequence. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of clear usage guidelines with exclusions.

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