record_contradiction

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions that the relationship is bidirectional and named CONTRADICTS. It omits important traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the beliefs do not exist, permission requirements, or whether weight affects propagation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and relationship type immediately, making it efficient even if it is terse.

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, three parameters, and zero schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not cover weight semantics, duplicate handling, error conditions, or expected return behavior, leaving important gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 explain all three parameters. It implies that id_a and id_b are beliefs, but it does not clarify their order, their string format, or the meaning and effect of the weight parameter at all.

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 gives a specific verb (Add), a specific relationship type (CONTRADICTS), and a specific resource (beliefs). It clearly distinguishes this operation from sibling relationship tools such as record_support, record_cause, and record_defeat because the relationship type is named explicitly.

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 says what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as record_support or record_cause. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues to help an agent choose this tool over siblings.

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