Propose a private hypothesis, inference, or intent as a non-authoritative assertion, enabling agents to record tentative knowledge with confidence and justification.
Create a private, non-authoritative assertion (hypothesis|inference|intent only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | ||
| subject | No | ||
| sessionId | No | ||
| confidence | No | ||
| epistemicKind | No | ||
| justification | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does convey that this creates a private, non-authoritative assertion and restricts acceptable epistemic kinds alerten. However, it does not explain side effects, visibility, permissions, reversibility, or return behavior, which is a meaningful gap for a creation tool.
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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. However, the parenthetical is cryptic and could have been replaced with a clear statement about constraints. It is concise, but concision comes at the cost of clarity.
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?
With zero required parameters, six undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many related sibling tools, this description is far too thin. It gives no usage context, no parameter guidance, no return value information, and no differentiation from similar tools like noetic.store or noetic.reason.
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 descriptions cover 0% of the six parameters. The description only hints at the epistemicKind parameter via the parenthetical 'hypothesis|inference|intent only' and says nothing about content, subject, sessionId, confidence, or justification. The agent is left to guess the meaning of most fields.
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 clear verb+resource pattern ('Create ... assertion') and adds meaningful qualifiers ('private', 'non-authoritative') that differentiate it from siblings like noetic.authority or noetic.publish. The parenthetical 'hypothesis|inference|intent only' narrows the intended content, though its exact meaning is somewhat ambiguous.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as noetic.authority, noetic.commit, or noetic.persist. The 'non-authoritative' qualifier implies it is not for authoritative assertions, but this is not explicit enough and no alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.