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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Build or update.' It does not clarify whether the graph is overwritten, whether existing data is preserved, whether task_structure_id must already exist, or what side effects updating may have.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It is reasonably front-loaded and readable, though the jargon 'Evidence-Carrying Cognitive Graph' is not unpacked.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is too sparse. It lacks usage context, parameter semantics for claims, and behavioral details around update semantics, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly without additional inference.

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 names 'task structure' and 'solution trace,' which loosely map to task_structure_id and solution_trace, but it never mentions the claims parameter, and all three parameters remain semantically underdescribed.

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 ('Build or update') with a clear resource ('Evidence-Carrying Cognitive Graph') and mentions the relevant inputs ('task structure and solution trace'). It distinguishes the action from auditing or evaluating evidence graphs, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_evidence_graph or evaluate_claim_evidence. The description implies a use case but provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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