evolve_bond

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: automatically records milestones and calculates momentum, and tracks trajectory over time. However, it does not disclose whether the update is destructive, whether permissions are required, or what the return value looks like.

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 core action, and contains no filler words. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 description leaves important gaps: no indication of what the tool returns, whether it is a destructive mutation, how 'momentum' is defined, or how to choose between this and mutate_graph. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is not fully contextualized for a 6-parameter tool.

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% with each parameter having a clear description. The description's mention of 'bond strength' and 'entities' aligns with the required parameters but adds no new semantic details beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool updates bond strength between entities and tracks relationship trajectory, using a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('bond strength'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like mutate_graph and hippocampus_write_event by focusing on relationship evolution and metrics.

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 when to use the tool (when updating bond strength), but it does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't mention sibling tools like mutate_graph or clarify when not to use this tool, so the agent must infer the intended scope.

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