record_hypothesis

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

Annotations only contain negative flags, so the description carries the burden. 'Record or revise' discloses mutation and a possible update path, but gives no detail on side effects such as superseding prior hypotheses, lifecycle transitions, or consequences of reusing hypothesis_id.

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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is underspecified for the number and complexity of input fields, so the conciseness is more attenuation than structure.

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 eight nested input fields, an optional hypothesis_id for revision, lifecycle/assessment defaults, and many scientific sibling tools, a one-line purpose statement is not enough. The description omits revision semantics, falsifiability requirements, and interaction with existing findings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain terms like claim, prediction, discriminating_condition, expected_revision, lifecycle, and assessment. It provides none of that, and 'falsifiable hypothesis' only loosely hints at a relationship among them.

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 a specific verb phrase, 'Record or revise', and clearly names the resource, 'a falsifiable hypothesis', so an agent can identify the intent. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like record_finding, but the object is 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus record_finding, get_hypothesis, or summarize_evidence. The phrase 'Record or revise' implies both create and update flows, but it never states when hypothesis_id should be provided or what conditions call for revision.

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