Propose a cited historical claim for a property-history dossier, keeping ownership, occupancy, permits and inferred dates distinct while preserving contradictory evidence.
Propose a cited historical claim. Keep ownership, occupancy, permits and inferred dates distinct. Contradictory evidence remains visible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| entityIds | No | ||
| eventDate | No | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| statement | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: contradictory evidence 'remains visible' and distinctions must be preserved, implying non-destructive, additive proposal semantics. It omits what state a proposed claim lands in and whether idempotency applies.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with the purpose first and no filler. Slightly telegraphic, but every sentence carries content.
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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema documentation, this is thin. Nothing explains evidence stance semantics, idempotencyKey behavior, or what a caller gets back after proposing, leaving key invocation details to inference.
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%, so the schema names seven parameters with no documentation and the description must compensate, but it does not. 'Cited' vaguely implies the evidence array and 'dates' vaguely implies eventDate, but no parameter is mapped, explained, or given format guidance.
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 verb and resource: 'Propose a cited historical claim.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like entity_propose and identity_merge_propose by naming the artifact (a cited claim). It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. 'Keep ownership, occupancy, permits and inferred dates distinct' is content-categorization advice, not a condition for selecting this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.