fact_propose

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that secret patterns are rejected before any write, matching text is never returned, type=boundary is always quarantined, and fake mcp:// sources are not injected. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema or tool name. Some gaps remain around authentication failures and persistence guarantees, but the most important safety behavior is covered.

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?

Three dense, information-bearing sentences with the operation front-loaded and constraints following. There is no filler, repetition of schema fields, or unnecessary background. Every sentence adds either operational meaning or safety-critical context.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most critical write-path safety rules and destination details. However, it omits usage-selection guidance, return behavior, and the meaning of several optional fields, leaving the agent somewhat undersupplied for a fully confident invocation.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for type (boundary is always quarantined) and source (real evidence only, no mcp:// injection), but title, body, topic, world, and agent semantics are left mostly to inference. This is partial compensation, not full coverage of the parameter space.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Write a draft fact under kasa/_oneriler/ (or quarantine)'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings fact_search, fact_read, and event_report, which are read/search/report operations. The write operation and destination path leave no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies the tool is for writing facts by using the verb 'Write', but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over fact_search, fact_read, or event_report, nor when not to use it. It provides behavioral constraints rather than selection criteria, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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