Causal Transition Management

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

Annotations already flag this as a destructive, non-idempotent, non-read-only tool, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: proposals are ledgered before admission, unadmitted proposals are not truth, refused proposals are preserved as evidence, mutations are audited, and list/state are read-only. It also discloses the origin_source-vs-ingress override rule and points to manage_history (action: undo) for reverting the most recent mutation.

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?

It is a dense block rather than a short one, but it is front-loaded with the core semantic and each sentence carries distinct information (ledger behavior, action routing, exclusions, revert path). Slightly long, but no sentence is 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?

For an 11-parameter, six-action mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the mutable lifecycle, read-only exceptions, action selection, and revert path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema does not: origin_source is honored only by propose, ingress always records machine-originated state, and undo lives in a separate tool. That said, several parameters (key, scope, from, expected_version, source_ordinal) get no added meaning.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Validate objective-state transitions against committed history') and frames the tool's core semantic — objective truth vs. belief — which immediately separates it from manage_belief and manage_perception. It also enumerates the six actions so the agent knows the tool's full surface without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' clauses map each action (propose/admit/reject/ingress/list/state) to a scenario, and a 'Do NOT use when' section names three concrete alternatives (manage_belief, manage_perception, manage_world) with the condition that selects each. This is about as good as routing guidance gets.

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