vault_write_belief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It explains the structure of beliefs and the Args, but omits details on side effects, permissions, whether writes overwrite or append, or idempotency. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 well-structured with a summary line, explanatory paragraph, and Args list. It is reasonably concise, though the Args section could be slightly more integrated. Every sentence adds value.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameter details well. It does not explain the output, but an output schema exists. It could mention success/failure outcomes, but overall is fairly complete for a write function.

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 schema has 0% coverage, but the description's Args section adds full meaning: it explains entity, title, body, confidence (with range), status (with enumerated values), sources, and derived_from. This compensates completely for the missing schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Write' and the resource 'belief artifact to the CogOps Knowledge Vault'. It distinguishes from siblings like vault_query and vault_write_action by specifying it writes a 'belief' artifact, and explains beliefs as durable system understanding.

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 usage for writing beliefs but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool. It doesn't mention alternative tools like vault_write_action, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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