insert_belief

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that provenance is required and persisted, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about permissions, idempotency/duplicate handling, or what an add returns, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the provenance requirement and the routing caveat. Every sentence is doing work, though the third sentence is dense and jargon-heavy ('standalone prior plus review feedback would count one incident twice').

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 6-parameter tool with a nested provenance object and no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, provenance duty, and sibling routing but omits meaning for several scalar parameters and any dedup/return behavior. Adequate to call correctly in the common case, incomplete around the edges.

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 50%, so half the parameters rely on the description. The description clarifies provenance semantics (must cite an independent source, not an experience) and the persistence implication, adding value beyond the enum. But it says nothing about probability, confidence, or content semantics, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a belief') and narrows the scope to sources grounded in an explicit user instruction or document. It also differentiates itself from the incident-derived path by naming record_experience and review_experience, so an agent can route without opening another schema. It does not distinguish itself from pattern-related siblings like insert_pattern, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 a clear when-to-use (independent user instruction/document) and a when-not-to-use with named alternatives ('Incident-derived conclusions must use record_experience and review_experience candidates'). The double-counting warning reinforces the boundary condition. Lacks a positive prerequisite checklist, but the routing guidance is explicit.

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