Assert a fact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses automatic supersession of contradicting facts, that facts are never deleted and history remains queryable, and that the fact is journalled to lore/journal/ in markdown. It omits permissions, error cases and return behavior, but the key non-obvious side effects are surfaced.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its side effects, then the usage cue. Dense but nearly every clause adds value; 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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the mutation semantics, supersession model, and persistence location that an agent most needs. It stops short of documenting half the optional parameters, but is otherwise complete for the call.

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 only 57%, so the description should compensate more. It clarifies the subject/predicate/object triple and the bitemporal (validFrom/validUntil) intent, which helps, but says nothing about confidence or the stated/extracted/inferred sourceType beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (record) and resource (an atomic subject :: predicate :: object fact), making the operation unambiguous. It does not name sibling tools like lore_propose_facts, but the tripartite structure is enough to identify the operation.

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 final sentence gives clear when-to-use context ('durable knowledge: decisions, states, preferences, relationships'). However, it offers no when-not guidance and never distinguishes this from the related sibling lore_propose_facts, leaving the routing to inference.

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