assert_situation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that roles can be IDs or inline objects and that valid_from/valid_to are ISO-8601. However, it does not specify behavior on invalid roles, whether duplicates are allowed, or if the operation is idempotent.

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 sentences that are front-loaded and to the point. The first sentence gives the core action, the second adds essential details. No wasted words.

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?

Given the complexity (5 params, nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the main functionality, role value types, and time constraints. It does not explain 'extra' but output schema handles return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining role values (existing entities or inline objects) and time format. However, the 'extra' parameter is not described, leaving a gap.

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 specific verb 'assert' and resource 'situation', clearly indicating the action of reifying a fact with roles. It distinguishes from siblings like add_entity (which adds entities) and define_verb (which defines verbs).

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it or not use it. It implies usage for asserting facts with temporal constraints, but no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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