aa_upsert_claim

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context with 'immediate reference validation,' but it does not explain what validation requires, what happens on invalid references, or how existing claims are affected.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action and the validation qualifier both earn their place.

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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with two enums and no output schema, the description is too thin. It covers the core action but omits parameter meaning, expected reference behavior, and sibling routing. Annotations help with safety and idempotency, but they do not fill the remaining gaps.

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% across six parameters, including required workspace, id, and text, plus optional evidence, authority, and freshness enums. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the schema's missing documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add or update a claim in the working report.' It also names a distinctive behavior, 'immediate reference validation,' which helps distinguish it from generic upsert tools. It does not explicitly differentiate from relevant siblings like aa_cite or aa_validate, so it falls short of a 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?

Usage is implied: use this to create or modify report claims. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over aa_cite for references, aa_validate for validation, or aa_upsert_section for other content types. No when-not or prerequisite information is given.

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