revise_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does disclose a key side effect: 'The old claim is superseded automatically.' It also adds that the parent is not left unresolved. It does not detail permissions or reversibility, but the core behavioral trait is clearly stated.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place. The behavioral note and the split_claim contrast are both useful and not redundant.

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 description captures the core operation and distinguishes the sibling, but it leaves domain-specific terms like 'parent unresolved' unexplained and provides no guidance on the replacement draft fields. Since there is no annotation coverage and top-level schema descriptions are absent, a bit more context about expected inputs would make it complete.

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 should compensate for parameter meaning. It only implies that replacement should be a corrected/narrower version of the claim; it does not explain research_id, claim_id, or how to construct the nested ClaimDraft. Some semantic meaning is added, but it 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 states a specific action ('Replace an incorrect/overbroad active claim') on a clear resource, and immediately distinguishes itself from split_claim. An agent can tell what this tool does and what it does not do.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this for semantic revision' and names the alternative 'use split_claim when one claim must become multiple children.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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