edit_assumption

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a meaningful behavioral trait ('Creates a new model version'), which is a side effect not obvious from the schema. However, it omits other relevant traits such as required permissions, reversibility, or implications for model state. This is more than a tautology but far from comprehensive.

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 two short, efficient sentences. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the primary purpose, and the second conveys a crucial side effect. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 presence of an output schema and a high-coverage input schema, the description is mostly complete for invocation. It conveys the essential non-obvious behavior (version creation) and the core purpose. However, it could additionally note when to use versus sibling assumption tools or any constraints, so it is slightly above minimum viable but not fully rich.

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 92%, so the input schema already documents the parameters in detail. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning or additional context beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies given the high coverage.

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 the action ('Edit an assumption') and identifies the resource, with a specific verb. It also mentions the key side effect of creating a new model version, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_assumption, remove_assumption, and restore_assumption.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that add_assumption is for new assumptions, remove_assumption for deletion, or any conditions that might make editing inappropriate.

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