revise_theory_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that existing beliefs are first contracted if the new assertion contradicts them, and names the specific formal method (AGM revision / Levi identity). This provides meaningful insight into the operation's side effects, though it does not mention other potential effects like logging or rollback.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value, and the technical reference is compact. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The core algorithm is well explained, but the tool is complex (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the description omits parameter guidance and return behavior. It also does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools. It is a reasonable overview but leaves notable gaps for a sophisticated revision operation.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the six parameters. While it says 'incorporating a new assertion', it never connects this to the 'content', 'assertionType', 'contractionStrategy', or any other field. The agent cannot infer what values these parameters should take from the description alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Revise') and resource ('the theory'), and explains the key mechanism (AGM revision / Levi identity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_assertion_tool and contract_assertion_tool, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: it is used when incorporating a new assertion into a theory, with handling for contradictions. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over add_assertion_tool or contract_assertion_tool, but the contraction behavior implies it is for revision scenarios rather than simple add or contract operations.

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