personal_add_hypothesis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that items are stored as 'candidate' by default and must not be presented as facts. However, it does not mention persistence behavior, side effects, idempotency, validation, or what happens after creation.

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 very short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Both clauses earn their place, though for a 9-parameter tool with no parameter documentation, the terseness leaves out important detail.

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 complexity, the absence of annotations and output schema, and the presence of similar sibling tools, the description is not complete enough. It omits return behavior, required parameter guidance, relationship to other add tools, and any operational constraints beyond the candidate/fact distinction.

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 does not explain any of the 9 parameters, such as id, claim, mechanism, confidence, or source_refs. It only conveys the overall object type ('candidate causal explanation'), so an agent gets little help with parameter-level semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: '登记候选因果解释' (register candidate causal explanation). It also explicitly contrasts hypotheses with facts via '不得冒充事实', which differentiates this tool from fact-recording siblings like personal_add_record.

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 indicates this tool is for candidate causal explanations and should not be used for established facts. It provides a clear when-to-use context, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or spell out when to choose them.

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