athena_transport_antibody_to_repair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that matches never auto-execute and that measurement/testing remains required, which is crucial for an agent to set expectations. However, it does not mention side effects like persistence behavior or mutation of existing data.

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, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. Every phrase adds meaning.

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?

Despite a complex input schema with nested objects and no output schema, the description provides only the core purpose and one caveat. It lacks explanation of required fields, the meaning of 'UNMEASURED FIELD', what happens with 'persist', and expected return value, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 only indirectly references 'matches' via 'failure-antibody matches'. It does not explain the 'failure_ref', 'actor', or 'persist' parameters, nor the structure/semantics of the matches array, leaving the agent without sufficient parameter-level guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Translate') with a clear source ('explicit failure-antibody matches') and destination ('UNMEASURED FIELD repair candidates'), which distinguishes it from sibling transport tools like athena_transport_alarm_to_gap and athena_transport_aor_to_collective.

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 implies when to use it (when you have failure-antibody matches) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The caveat about not auto-executing is more about behavior than usage guidance.

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