record_hypothesis

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds little context beyond 'record or revise'. It doesn't disclose how revision works, whether previous versions are superseded, or any side effects on existing hypotheses, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or repetition. It earns its place by stating the core action, though it would benefit from additional detail; this is still concise rather than verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, an output schema, and sits in a complex investigation workflow, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the investigation context, how hypotheses are used, or any relationship to other tools, making it insufficient for correct invocation in non-trivial scenarios.

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 0%, and the tool description provides no parameter information. The schema has 8 fields with mostly self-evident names but no descriptions, and the word 'falsifiable' only weakly hints at what a valid hypothesis entails. This forces the agent to rely on guesses about fields like 'discriminating_condition'.

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 uses specific verbs 'Record or revise' and a clear resource 'falsifiable hypothesis', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_finding and record_analysis. However, it doesn't clarify that revision is done via the optional hypothesis_id parameter, so it's slightly incomplete but still distinct.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as record_finding or plan_experiment. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool names, leaving usage entirely implied.

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