Add a DEFEATS edge and trigger the defeat propagation cascade to update Mimir's reasoning memory when new evidence defeats a prior decision.
Add a DEFEATS edge and trigger defeat propagation cascade.
| 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 burden, but it does disclose a real side effect: a defeat propagation cascade. It doesn't say what the cascade affects, how far it propagates, or whether it is costly or reversible, which matters for a mutation on a belief graph.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary action comes first and the cascade side effect second. It is appropriately terse, though the terseness contributes to the parameter and usage gaps.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation is under-specified; the undefined cascade is the only behavioral detail. An agent cannot confidently supply weight or predict the effect on other beliefs.
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?
All 3 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions from_id, to_id, or weight — notably the 0-1 weight range and which id is the defeated belief remain unexplained.
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) and resource (DEFEATS edge), and the edge type distinguishes it from siblings like record_support and record_cause. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent among the parallel record_* tools.
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 when-to-use guidance and no comparison against record_contradiction, record_support, or record_cause, despite those being obvious alternatives for a parallel naming family. The agent must infer the distinction from the edge type alone.
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