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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'mark', implying a state change, but does not explain side effects, idempotency, authorization requirements, or potential failures.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it easy to parse.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is too terse to cover essential context like side effects, prerequisites, or error cases, leaving the agent underinformed for safe and correct 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?

The schema covers 60% of parameters with descriptions (name_a, name_b, reason), which are self-explanatory. The tool description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema, and the optional npub and dpop_token remain undocumented in both the description and schema.

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 'Mark two invariants as contradictory' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cypher_assert_invariant and cypher_audit_what_contradicts by focusing on marking a contradiction. However, it could be more explicit about whether this creates, updates, or only links entities.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as cypher_assert_invariant or cypher_audit_what_contradicts. No mention of prerequisites, such as whether the invariants must already exist, or any context for appropriate use.

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