add_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful semantics: the edge type (GROUNDS), that it targets the belief's Beta state, and that it is local positive evidence only. But it omits reversibility, idempotency on repeat calls, permissions, and what happens to the belief on failure — real gaps for a mutation with zero annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences that are well front-loaded: action first, constraint second, input sourcing last. No filler or redundancy. Slightly under-sized for the amount of undocumented behavior, but structurally clean.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should carry more. It explains the edge type but leaves weight semantics, belief_id meaning, idempotency, and reversibility undocumented, which is inadequate for a three-parameter mutation 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only clarifies the origin of chunk_id ('from query_document results'); belief_id is unexplained and weight (0-1, default 1) is never described — its meaning as evidence strength or its effect on the Beta update is unstated.

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: 'create a GROUNDS edge from a DocumentChunk to a Belief' and 'adds local positive evidence to the belief Beta state'. It also clarifies what it is not ('never becomes a causal or belief-to-belief edge'), which partially distinguishes it from record_cause. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling (record_support), so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 gives one concrete usage hint — 'Get chunk_id from query_document results' — establishing a prerequisite and data source. However, it does not say when to use this versus record_support, record_contradiction, or record_cause, nor any when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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