refute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that `refute` mutates state (marks a hypothesis) and that `by` is optional, allowing recording without evidence. However, it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, side effects, or what happens to existing verdicts, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core action and then address the optional parameter. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool, the description is incomplete: it lacks details on permissions, side effects, return values, and how it differs from other verdict-setting tools like `confirm` or `inconclusive`. It covers the basic action and optional parameter but leaves much unsaid.

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?

The description clarifies that `by` is the falsifying counter-evidence node and is optional, which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema. The schema already describes `by` in detail, but the description reinforces that it's optional and same as `confirm`. The `initiative` parameter is not mentioned, but schema provides some description (67% coverage), so this is not a major gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark a hypothesis as refuted'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like `confirm` or `inconclusive` beyond the verb itself, leaving the agent to infer that this is the falsification counterpart of confirmation.

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 mentions `by` is optional 'same as for `confirm`', implying a parallel usage, but does not explicitly state when to use `refute` vs `confirm` or `inconclusive`. No prerequisites or exclusions are given; it's implied that this is for falsifying a hypothesis.

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