erinys_reinforce

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does state that the tool mutates access_count and last_accessed, which is useful, but it omits side effects, exact semantics (e.g., whether access_count is incremented or set), and any authorization requirements.

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 that directly states the action and affected fields. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter mutation with an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage context and alternative guidance, leaving the agent uncertain about when to select this tool over sibling tools like erinys_update or erinys_recall.

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% and the description does not mention observation_id or explain how to identify the observation. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, as required for low-coverage cases.

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 the specific verb 'Reinforce' and identifies the resource ('observation'), while explicitly stating the action taken: 'updating access_count and last_accessed.' This clearly differentiates it from general update or recall tools, such as erinys_update or erinys_recall.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, intended context, or tools to avoid, leaving the agent to infer usage from the vague term 'reinforce.'

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