submit_counterevidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: only is_contradiction=true persists confirmed counterevidence. It says nothing about idempotency, required run/claim state, or what happens to candidates judged false, so coverage is partial.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence earns its place by stating the persistence rule, though a few more words would be needed to be fully actionable.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the persistence rule is captured. But for a six-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the missing parameter semantics leave a meaningful gap an agent must guess at.

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 six parameters exist. The description only gestures at is_contradiction's effect; run_id, claim_id, document_id, reasoning, and confidence are left entirely unexplained in both schema and prose, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a concrete verb ('Classify') and a bounded resource ('one retrieved candidate') with the judgment target ('confirming or not confirming a contradiction'). The word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling submit_counterevidence_batch, though that alternative is never named.

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 states the trigger condition for the tool to have effect ('Only an explicit is_contradiction=true judgment adds confirmed counterevidence'), which implies when it matters. However it never names alternatives such as get_counterevidence_candidates (upstream retrieval) or submit_counterevidence_batch, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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