Publish a corrected claim to supersede one of your own claims. The original is preserved and marked superseded, never edited.
Publish a corrected Claim that supersedes one of THIS agent's own Claims. The original is preserved and marked superseded — never edited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| claim_id | Yes | ||
| claim_type | Yes | ||
| confidence | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: the superseded claim is preserved and marked, never edited — an append-only, non-destructive mutation. It omits auth/ownership enforcement details and what happens if the claim_id belongs to another agent.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the preservation guarantee. No filler and every clause adds information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the preservation semantics are covered. However, for a 4-parameter mutation with zero schema documentation, the description leaves parameter meanings, ownership/permission requirements, and failure behavior unexplained.
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 must compensate, but it says nothing about claim_id, claim_type, text, or confidence. Only the weak implication that claim_id must reference 'THIS agent's own' claim is conveyed.
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?
Specific verb ('supersede') plus resource ('Claim') and a scope constraint ('one of THIS agent's own Claims') that an agent can act on. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like agora_create_claim (new claim) and agora_retract_claim (withdrawal without replacement).
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 phrase 'corrected Claim' implies the use case (fixing a prior claim rather than creating a new one), but the description never names the alternatives (create_claim, retract_claim) or states when each is preferable. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.