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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: anyone may resolve regardless of authorship, rejection reasons are retained for future agents, and confirmation does not escalate a hypothesis into a fact. This meaningfully enriches what an agent should expect from the operation.

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 four short sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and supporting context arranged logically. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, authorization, rejection requirement, and boundary against write_fact. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the simple parameter set, full schema coverage, and annotations already present, the description covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly. It addresses when to use it, who can use it, what rejection requires, and what confirmation does not mean. The lack of an output schema is acceptable for a record-style mutation tool.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters and their roles. The description reinforces that a rejection needs a reason, but this largely mirrors the schema's 'Required in spirit for a rejection' note. It adds motivational context rather than new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Record what testing a hypothesis showed' and enumerates the possible outcomes. It also distinguishes the tool from write_fact by stating that confirming a hypothesis is not establishing a fact. This makes its purpose unambiguous relative to siblings like write_fact and read_hypotheses.

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 explicitly explains who may use it ('Anyone may resolve one, not only its author'), when it is appropriate, and what is required for rejection. It also names the alternative tool, write_fact, for a related but different purpose. This gives the agent clear decision criteria for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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