record_heuristic_contradiction

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it bumps contradiction counts, lowers confidence by 20% (new = old - old*0.2), and is OCC-protected. However, it does not explain what 'contradictions' are, the range of confidence, or error conditions when the heuristic doesn't exist.

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 short and to the point, but includes a version number ('v2.1.0') which is likely unnecessary for the agent. It could be slightly more structured but is mostly 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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention return values. For a mutation tool, the agent needs to know what the response contains. Additionally, parameter semantics are missing, leaving significant gaps.

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?

The schema has one required parameter 'id' with zero schema description coverage. The description completely fails to explain what 'id' refers to (heuristic ID?) or its format. The agent has no context for this parameter.

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 the verb 'Record a counter-example' and implies the resource is a heuristic via the tool name. It describes effects: bumps contradictions and lowers confidence with a formula. However, it could be more explicit about the resource and distinguish from siblings like 'add_heuristic'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_heuristic' or 'detect_heuristic_conflicts'. The mention of 'OCC-protected' is a constraint, not usage guidance.

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