add_evidence

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that duplicates are rejected rather than created (concretizing idempotentHint), that contradictions accelerate the contradicted memory's decay, that superseded or archived evidence stops counting, and that a relation_id is returned. Auth requirement is also stated. These are real side effects and constraints an agent could not infer from the structured fields.

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-loads the core purpose, then mode semantics, then side effects and auth — a sensible order. Dense but every clause carries information; only the parenthetical re-explanation of supports/contradicts is mildly redundant with the relation schema description.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers return value (relation_id), failure mode (duplicate rejection), downstream consequences (decay acceleration, superseded evidence), and auth. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it clarifies the direction of the evidence_id → memory_id arrow and what `source` does for sourced_from. It does not explain `confidence` or `agent_id`, leaving those entirely to the schema.

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 ("Record evidence for a memory") and spells out the two modes of the operation (memory→memory relations vs memory→external source provenance). An agent can see this is a write of a single relation, unlike the read-oriented get_memory_evidence sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Clear conditional guidance per mode: relation="supports"/"contradicts" link evidence_id → memory_id, relation="sourced_from" requires `source`. Prerequisites (agent key auth, source required) are stated. It does not, however, say when an agent should prefer this over save_memory or get_memory_evidence, or when not to use it.

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