fact_propose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose whether proposing creates a record immediately, requires approval, or has side effects. The required idempotency_key's role is also not mentioned.

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 sentence, efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, 'through the canonical service' is filler that adds no real information, slightly reducing its structured value.

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 12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-sentence description is profoundly inadequate. It does not explain what a proposal entails, how evidence is structured, or what the agent should expect in response.

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 only 8%, with only idempotency_key having a description. The description adds minimal semantic value by hinting that `kind` is 'fact or practice,' but it does not explain evidence structures, subject format, or temporal fields.

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 clearly states 'Propose a candidate fact or practice,' identifying the action (propose) and the resource (fact/practice). This distinguishes it from siblings like fact_get and fact_search, which are retrieval operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or choosing between fact_propose and other tools like fact_search or document_put.

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