retract-premise

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 states the tool 'Removes the exact formula if found,' which clarifies it's a destructive operation (mutation) with conditional execution. However, it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., what happens if formula not found), permissions, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 purpose, followed by a clear usage guideline and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second when to use it, and the third illustrates with parameters. No wasted words, and the structure is logical and efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity (destructive operation with conditional removal), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, and parameter behavior. However, it lacks details on error cases or return values, which would be helpful for a mutation tool. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps in behavioral context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing 'Exact formula to remove (must match what was asserted)' in the example, reinforcing the matching requirement. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the added emphasis on exact matching justifies a slightly higher score.

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 specific action ('Remove') and target resource ('a specific premise from a session's knowledge base'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'clear-session' (removes all premises) or 'delete-session' (removes entire session). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides a 'When to use' section that states 'You need to undo an assertion or explore alternative premises,' giving clear context for usage. It also distinguishes from alternatives by specifying removal of 'a specific premise' rather than all premises (clear-session) or the session itself (delete-session).

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