knowmind_review_inferred

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

Beyond annotations, the description explains the exact effects of confirm, reject, and undo, including that reject sets valid_to=now on the relation, its reverse, and all derived relations while deleting nothing. It also notes the return payload and that write scope is required, giving rich operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then systematically covers decision semantics, parameter usage, return values, and scope requirements. Every sentence carries necessary information with no 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers inputs, decision effects, return contents, and authorization scope. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond schema: it defines the semantic consequences of each decision enum value and clarifies that evidence is optional. This goes well beyond the schema's terse 'confirm, reject, or undo a rejection'.

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 verb and resource: 'Record a human decision on one inferred relation from knowmind_list_inferred.' It explicitly names the sibling tool that produces the input, so an agent can distinguish it from other review or list operations.

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 clearly places the tool after knowmind_list_inferred and explains what each decision value accomplishes, giving strong context for when to use it. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related tasks.

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