edit_assumption

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

The description mentions a key behavioral trait: 'Creates a new model version' – a side effect beyond simple edits. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose other important aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to the old assumption version. The mention provides partial transparency.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded, which is good for conciseness. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it under-specified. It earns points for brevity but loses for insufficient informativeness.

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 the tool's complexity (12 parameters, output schema, side effect of version creation), the description is far from complete. It does not explain the return value, the creation of a new model version, or how to use the parameters. Essential context for correct usage is missing.

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 low (42%), meaning many parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning; it relies entirely on the schema. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, so the value added is minimal.

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 clearly states 'Edit an assumption' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_assumption' or 'remove_assumption'. However, it lacks detail on what aspects can be edited (e.g., description, linked controls, exclusions), which limits differentiation from potential alternative edit actions.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to edit vs add/delete/restore an assumption, or any context about the editing workflow.

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