mark_contradiction

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly states that the tool adds a contradicts edge, which is a mutating graph operation. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether existing facts are modified, how the edge affects recall or inference, or any permissions or reversibility concerns.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the alternative-tool guidance is placed in the second sentence where it is easy to scan.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too brief to fully equip an agent. It leaves open questions about how subjects are resolved from relation IDs, what the tool returns, whether the edge is directed, and how confidence and dataset influence the operation.

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 the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It implicitly maps first_relation_id and second_relation_id to the two stored facts, but it does not explain the role of reason, dataset, or confidence, nor how they affect the resulting edge. The parameter names are intuitive, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond them.

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 uses a specific verb and object: 'Record that two stored facts cannot both be true' and 'Adds a contradicts edge between their subjects.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from supersede, making the tool's role unambiguous even without inspecting the schema.

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 explicitly says to use supersede instead when the newer fact simply replaces the older one in time. This gives the agent a clear decision rule for choosing between two closely related sibling tools.

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