update_belief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful trait — that the tool invokes the optimizer role's tell and then reads back the updated posterior — and hints at ordering enforcement, but it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, side effects, or idempotency for what is clearly a state-mutating operation.

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 core sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but the two 'Enforcement: commitment N' lines are cryptic pointers to an external policy document that most agents cannot resolve, so they consume space without conveying actionable meaning.

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 not be explained. Still, for a state-mutating tool embedded in a long trial/observation workflow with no annotations, the description leaves the caller unclear about preconditions and the relationship to sibling tools like record_observation and run_trial.

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 three parameters (programme_id, trial_id, observation_id) with short descriptions. The description adds no format, constraint, or relationship detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Update the belief state for a programme') and even sketches the mechanism ('Calls the optimizer role's tell, then reads the updated posterior'). However, it does nothing to distinguish this tool from adjacent workflow siblings such as record_observation or run_trial, so an agent must infer the boundary from the schema alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statement, and no named alternative. The only usage signal is implicit ('for a programme' plus an observation_id parameter), which leaves the agent guessing whether this should be called after record_observation or after run_trial.

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