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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that the tool can both create and update a graph, but does not explain what happens on update, whether existing data is replaced, what claims are expected, or whether the operation has side effects. The behavior is too opaque for a state-changing graph tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It wastes no words and places the verb and object first. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and parameter detail, so it is concise but not complete.

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?

With no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and a graph-building operation, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It does not explain when to build versus audit, how claims and solution_trace relate to the graph, or update semantics. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input and decision context remain incomplete.

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 parameter meaning must come entirely from the description. The description references task_structure_id and solution_trace by role, but it omits the 'claims' parameter entirely and gives no detail about required structure or format for any parameter. This leaves a required parameter and two optional inputs semantically under-specified.

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 states a specific verb ('Build or update') and a specific resource ('Evidence-Carrying Cognitive Graph'), and identifies the inputs ('task structure and solution trace'). This is clear enough for an agent to recognize the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cognitive.audit_evidence_graph or cognitive.evaluate_claim_evidence.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative. It does not mention audit_evidence_graph, build_evidence_graph, or evaluate_claim_evidence, nor does it state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.

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