Runs defeat propagation from a seed belief ID to update reasoning memory and reveal which beliefs are invalidated or defended.
Run defeat propagation from a seed belief ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says to 'Run defeat propagation' without disclosing whether beliefs are modified, whether changes are reversible, permissions required, rate limits, or what the propagation affects. This is minimal disclosure at best.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and input. No filler is present, though the extreme brevity leaves little structure for a potentially complex operation.
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 a single undocumented parameter in the schema, the description should carry more context. It names the seed input but omits propagation semantics, side effects, and usage conditions, leaving an agent unable to predict the outcome.
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 sole parameter is named 'id' and the schema gives only type string with no description (0% coverage). The description adds that 'id' is a 'seed belief ID', which is a useful semantic mapping, but it does not specify format, constraints, or expected source.
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 action ('Run defeat propagation') and the input source ('from a seed belief ID'). It is clearer than a tautology, but it does not define what 'defeat propagation' entails or distinguish this operation from sibling tools like record_defeat or sweep_expired_defeated.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus record_defeat, sweep_expired_defeated, or other belief operations. The only implicit usage is that it requires a seed belief ID. That is minimal, not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed