reaffirm_belief

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that it re-anchors at the current changeset, that new evidence replaces old ones, and that it rejects invalidated beliefs. It doesn't state side effects like whether it creates a new changeset or overwrites prior anchors, but the core behavior is adequately transparent for a belief-management operation.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a clarifying example and a crisp restriction. Every sentence carries essential information, making it efficient and easily parseable.

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 tool with two simple parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential aspects: action, target, optional behavior, and an explicit exclusion. It doesn't address edge cases like invalid belief IDs or failure modes, but those are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools for broader context.

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 50% (belief has a schema description, evidence does not). The description adds crucial meaning by explaining that 'evidence' is optional and that new evidence spans replace old ones, compensating for the schema's lack of description on that parameter. The belief parameter is reinforced by the overall context, though it doesn't add new syntax-level detail beyond 'id or exact claim'.

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 clear action ('Re-anchor a belief') on a specific resource ('belief') and gives a concrete use case (stale-candidate whose claim still holds). It also contrasts with an alternative ('propose a new belief... instead'), which distinguishes it from siblings like propose_belief without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('after you have re-verified it against the code'), when not allowed ('Not allowed for invalidated beliefs'), and points to the alternative ('propose a new belief with current evidence instead'). This gives clear, actionable guidance for tool selection.

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