reinforce_heuristic

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

Discloses the update formula and concurrency protection (OCC), which adds value beyond basic mutation. However, with no annotations, the description does not disclose whether the heuristic must exist, what the return value is, or if there are side effects (e.g., last-updated timestamp).

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The formula and concurrency note are valuable. The version prefix is minor but not harmful.

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?

Lacks explanation of return values, error states, or prerequisites. While it covers the core update mechanism, the agent lacks critical invocation context like whether the heuristic must exist and what constitutes a 'successful application'.

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 single required parameter 'id' is not described at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what the id refers to (heuristic ID) and any constraints, but it does not.

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 tool records a successful application of a heuristic, updating support and confidence. It differentiates from sibling tools like add_heuristic (creation) or get_heuristic (reading). However, the phrase 'bumps support' is somewhat informal.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like record_heuristic_contradiction or match_heuristics. The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios.

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