goldhold_plan_fact

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a critical trait: recording a fact supersedes prior facts on the same topic. However, it does not clarify whether superseded facts are deleted/archived, whether a plan must exist first, or what a successful call returns.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action and the key behavioral consequence appear immediately, though the SSOT abbreviation could be spelled out.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves meaningful gaps: no usage routing, no parameter details for source/confidence, and no indication of return behavior or prerequisites. The presence of 28 siblings makes this weaker than an isolated 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?

The description maps some parameters: 'within a plan' implies plan_slug, 'same topic' clarifies topic as the supersession key, and 'fact' implies body content. It does not explain optional source and confidence, and schema coverage is 0%, so partial compensation only.

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 action ('Record') and resource ('fact (SSOT) within a plan'), and adds the distinct behavior 'Supersedes previous facts on the same topic'. This differentiates it from siblings like goldhold_plan_decision and goldhold_plan_task even without naming them.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. With several plan-related siblings (plan_decision, plan_task, plan_checkpoint), the description relies entirely on the word 'fact' to route the agent and does not say when this tool is preferred or inappropriate.

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