record_support

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation (adding an edge) but says nothing about idempotency for duplicate edges, whether the edge is directed, error behavior for unknown belief IDs, or whether existing weights are overwritten.

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 zero filler, and the edge type is stated immediately. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, but it is not under-specified in the tautological sense of restating the tool name.

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 required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits weight semantics, duplicate handling, and failure modes. It is not sufficient on its own to invoke the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 0% across all three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The phrasing 'from one belief to another' loosely maps to from_id/to_id direction, but the required 'weight' parameter (0-1) is never explained in terms of what it represents or how it affects propagation.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('SUPPORTS edge'), with the source and target being beliefs. Naming the edge type distinguishes it somewhat from siblings like record_cause, record_defeat, and record_contradiction, but it never explicitly contrasts with those parallel 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?

There is no guidance on when to use record_support rather than record_cause, record_defeat, or record_contradiction, all of which appear to create analogous edges. No prerequisites, no mention of what happens if the same edge already exists.

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