Erinys Reinforce

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that access_count and last_accessed are updated, but does not state whether access_count is incremented or overwritten, whether the observation must already exist, whether the operation is idempotent, or what permissions are needed.

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. Every part of the sentence communicates the action and the fields being changed.

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 simple, with one required parameter and an output schema, and the description conveys the core operation. However, for a mutation with no annotations, it leaves out important behavioral details such as increment semantics, existence requirements, and side effects.

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 never mentions observation_id or explains its expected meaning beyond the parameter name. With only one parameter the invocation is still inferable, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema 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 action and mechanism: reinforcing an observation by updating access_count and last_accessed. This distinguishes it reasonably well from generic siblings like erinys_update or erinys_get, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus erinys_update, erinys_recall, or other observation-related siblings. Usage is implied by the term 'reinforce', but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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