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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: caller standing/identity, role-based permission for supersede/quarantine/restore, 'original claim and subject remain visible', and idempotency semantics with fail-closed behavior on changed retries. None of this conflicts with annotations; it enriches the idempotentHint and destructiveHint.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core operation; every sentence adds substantive info—permission constraints and idempotency behavior—without repetition or fluff.

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 is rich enough for a mutation tool of moderate complexity, covering purpose, permissions, idempotency, and failure behavior. It lacks explicit return/error details and does not explicitly route to sibling tools, but annotations and schema fill part of the gap.

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?

With only 17% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by detailing idempotency_key format/behavior and role semantics for action variants. However record_id, reason, and evidence are left to inference, and the description does not explain how to populate the nested evidence object.

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?

States a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('edge declaration') and clearly separates this from declaring or inspecting edges. It names corroboration/contradiction and later mentions supersede/quarantine/restore, though the main clause does not enumerate all five action values, which keeps it from a perfect 5.

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?

Provides clear context: this tool appends to an existing edge declaration under the caller's own standing, with role restrictions for supersede/quarantine/restore. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like declare_edge or inspect_edge, so when-not-to-use is implied rather than stated.

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