Override a flagged atomicity warning for a specific claim, providing a reason to accept it as-is despite the warning.
Explicitly override an atomicity warning for a maximally atomic claim.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| claim_id | Yes | ||
| research_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| agent_rules | No | ||
| next_action | No | ||
| quality_gate | No | ||
| protocol_version | No | 7.2 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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, but it only states the action ('explicitly override') without describing effects: persistence, reversibility, downstream validation impact, or whether overriding bypasses safety checks. This is a state-changing operation, yet the consequences are undisclosed.
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 appropriately terse and front-loaded with the governing verb. But it is so brief that it borders on under-specification for a tool with three opaque parameters and a state-changing effect.
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 output schema covers return values, but the description omits essential workflow context: what an atomicity warning is, when it arises, prerequisites for the override, and the effect on downstream stages such as assess_claims or finalize_research. For an override action with governance implications, this is a significant gap.
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 names none of the three parameters, leaving 'reason', 'claim_id', and 'research_id' semantically opaque. The description is the only place that could compensate for the empty schema, and it does not.
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 clear action (override) and a clear object (atomicity warning for a maximally atomic claim), distinguishing it from mutation siblings like split_claim and revise_claim. However, it relies on unexplained domain jargon ('maximally atomic claim') and does not explicitly contrast with the closest siblings.
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 given about when overriding an atomicity warning is appropriate or required, nor are any exclusions stated. The agent must infer prerequisites (that a warning exists, that an override is justified) from the tool name and surrounding context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.