Add a causal edge from one belief to another to support counterfactual do(...) queries via query_intervention; does not trigger propagation.
Add a CAUSES edge from one belief to another (from_id causes to_id). Causal edges are what query_intervention traverses for counterfactual do(...) queries; unlike record_defeat this does NOT trigger propagation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_id | Yes | ||
| weight | Yes | ||
| from_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious trait that no structured field encodes: this edge does not trigger propagation, unlike record_defeat. However, it says nothing about weight semantics, error behavior for missing ids, duplicate-edge handling, or what the call returns.
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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and direction, followed by the two behavioral facts that matter most. No filler.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is directionally complete but leaves weight semantics, failure modes, and duplicate/idempotency behavior unstated. Adequate, but gaps remain for a 3-param write operation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the direction of the two id parameters ('from_id causes to_id'), which is the key semantic ambiguity, but the required weight parameter's meaning is entirely unaddressed despite the schema's 0-1 bounds.
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 (Add), a specific resource (a CAUSES edge), and the exact direction semantics (from_id causes to_id). It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling record_defeat, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.
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?
Tells the agent the causal consequence ('what query_intervention traverses for counterfactual do(...) queries') and contrasts with record_defeat ('does NOT trigger propagation'), which effectively routes the agent between the two record_* tools. It stops short of stating explicit prerequisites (e.g., both beliefs must already exist).
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