set_belief

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral detail: 'None args keep the current value' clarifies that omitted fields are preserved, not cleared. This goes beyond schema defaults and adds practical semantics for a partial update.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact and structured argument list. Every line earns its place, and the length is appropriate for six parameters. No redundant or filler language.

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 tool is complex (six parameters, no annotations), but the description covers the main behavior and all parameter meanings. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Minor gaps like error handling or validation rules are not addressed, but core usage is fully covered.

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 fully compensates. Each of the six parameters gets a concise, meaningful explanation (e.g., status enum values, valid_until as an expiry date, superseded_by as a replacement ID). These add semantic value beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 clearly states the action ('Update a memory's belief envelope') with a specific verb and resource. The term 'belief envelope' distinguishes it from more generic tools like update_memory, and the parameter list confirms specialized functionality.

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 usage is implied through the parameter descriptions and the 'None args keep the current value' note, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_memory or review_beliefs. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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