add_assertion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real behavior — assertions with zero evidence are rejected — but says nothing about whether this mutates the bundle, requires prior evidence capture, permissions, or idempotency for duplicate claims.

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, zero filler, action stated first and the constraint second. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 complete parameter schema and no output schema keep requirements modest, but for an unannotated write-ish operation the description should say what the added assertion affects in the bundle and what happens on success. It is adequate rather than sufficient.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including minItems=1 on evidenceIds. The description's 'one or more supporting evidence IDs' merely restates the schema and adds no new semantics such as ID format or ordering rules.

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?

Specific verb (links) plus resource (claim → evidence IDs), which is clear on its own. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like create_evidence_bundle or capture_git_evidence, though the evidence-ID linkage implicitly places it downstream of those.

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 statement of when to use this versus creating or verifying a bundle, and no prerequisites such as 'evidence must exist first'. The only usage-like content is the rejection rule, which is a constraint rather than guidance on choosing this tool.

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