unlock_atlas_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: it discloses the price (1 RM token), that the charge is additive to current access, the 30-day window, and that the confirm-less call returns cost and the user's balance. It does not say what happens on insufficient balance, whether repeat calls extend access, or whether the charge is reversible — relevant for a payment operation.

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 purpose and cost are front-loaded and the confirmation rule is emphasized where an agent will see it. The trailing 'Args: confirm: True only after the user's explicit yes' restates the IMPORTANT block, which is mild redundancy but defensible for a destructive-in-effect cost barrier.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety-critical flow is fully described for a 1-parameter tool. What is missing is edge-case behavior — insufficient RM balance, concurrent or repeated unlocks, and whether a preview call has any side effect.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is boolean, yet the description fully defines its meaning in both states: false/absent triggers a cost-and-balance preview, true executes only after explicit user consent in the same conversation. That is exactly the semantic the bare schema property 'Confirm' with default false fails to convey.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Unlock the Atlas sources') and immediately defines what is being unlocked (paper/research-group sourcing and frontier attribution) plus the duration of 30 days. That scope is clearly distinguishable from account_status or search_atlas, the nearest siblings.

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?

Explicitly prescribes a two-step flow: call first without confirm to obtain cost and balance, tell the user, ask; only then call with confirm=true after an explicit yes. It also names the exclusion condition ('ONLY if the user then explicitly answered yes'), leaving nothing to inference.

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