athena_worker_cost_observe

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that data is persisted, implying a write side effect, but it does not disclose return behavior, idempotency, overwrite semantics, authorization needs, or failure modes.

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 efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though the dense jargon ('normalized budget pressure') slightly reduces immediate readability.

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 7 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the tool requires richer guidance. The description covers only some data concepts and omits usage, return expectations, and behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds valuable semantics by mapping 'resources' to per-worker resource use, 'budget' to normalized budget pressure, and 'useful_output' to useful-output efficiency. However, it leaves actor, scope, and task_id unaccounted for, leaving clear gaps.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Persist' and identifies the exact resource/scope: measured per-worker resource use, normalized budget pressure, and useful-output efficiency. This clearly differentiates it from sibling observe/record tools by focusing on worker-cost data for scheduling.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like athena_budget_record or other observe tools. The phrase 'for future scheduling' provides only an implied purpose, not usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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