abandon_hypothesis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it clarifies the operation is not a verdict, mints no claim, records no conclusion, stamps attribute and rationale, preserves already-recorded trials, and enumerates the source states it applies to versus the terminal states it rejects. These are the exact preconditions and side-effect semantics an agent needs for a mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core distinction (abandon vs. verdict) before the supporting conditions. It runs slightly long and repeats the 'not a verdict' idea across clauses, but every sentence still carries operational meaning, so little is wasted.

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. Combined with full param coverage, stated preconditions, side-effect transparency, and a named alternative for the bulk case, the definition gives an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic weight beyond the schema by framing the operation as needing attribution and rationale ('stamped with who decided and why'), which explains why decided_by and rationale are required rather than optional metadata.

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?

A specific verb+resource ('Abandon a hypothesis') with an immediate scope modifier ('attributed, rationaled, never erased'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the conclude path ('Abandoning is NOT a verdict — no conclusion is recorded') and names close_programme for the bulk case, so an agent can route without opening sibling schemas.

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?

States exactly when to use it ('The exit for a hypothesis that can never conclude: falsified premises, superseded questions, trials that can only fail'), when it is refused (terminal states accepted|rejected|inconclusive|abandoned), and which alternative covers the bulk operation (close_programme(status="abandoned")). When, when-not, and alternatives are all present.

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