dialectic_claim

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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false — so a stateful write. The description adds useful context: immutable source reference, the 'manual' default meaning direct input, and the return format. However, it doesn't say anything about duplication, auth requirements, or what happens if the claim already exists. With annotations covering safety profile, this is moderate.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then parameters, then return format. Efficiently written with no filler. The indented recommended values list is clear. Slightly packed but all sentences earn their place.

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 5-param mutation tool with no schema descriptions and an output schema, the description covers the key parameters and the return format. It's reasonably complete, though the relationship to sibling dialectic tools and the behavioral implications of a non-idempotent write are not fully addressed.

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 no parameter has a description in the schema. The description compensates substantially: explains 'evidence', 'evidence_kind' ('support' default, 'contradict'), 'source' (e.g., dialog:<uuid>, 'manual' meaning direct input), and 'domain' (free-text with recommended values). Only 'claim' is left without a semantic gloss, but its meaning is obvious from context. Good compensation for the 0% coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Register a new claim about the user'), which is clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling evidence/dialectic tools (dialectic_evidence, dialectic_synthesis), but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Implied usage: register a claim, optionally attach evidence. But no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives like dialectic_evidence or dialectic_observation_resolve. The evidence_kind default is helpful but doesn't cover when to use this tool at all.

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