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

Annotations only say readOnly=false and idempotent=false, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds meaningful behavioral detail: parent requirement, linter validation on the text, and auto-classification of the type by an LLM. This goes beyond what annotations or the schema alone reveal.

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 short and well-organized: core action first, then the premise definition, then constraints. Each sentence contributes useful information without fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers the essential operational constraints: the parent requirement, linter rules, and auto-classification. It does not explain failure behavior if the linter rejects text or what the response contains, but those are secondary for tool selection and basic invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value: it explains that text is the premise for why the goal contributes to the parent and that goalId refers to the child goal in a parent→child edge. It does not add much about signpost, but the schema already describes it as optional.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Add an assumption to a goal edge (parent→this goal).' It defines what an assumption is, so an agent can distinguish this from siblings like goal-add-criterion or goal-add-note. The parent/root-goal constraint further sharpens what this tool does.

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?

It gives clear context for use: adding an assumption to a goal edge, with the important exclusion that root goals have no edge and therefore cannot use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling context plus the focused description makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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