reasoning_ingest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a write operation requiring --allow-write, characterizes the fact as bounded and atomic, gives the exact format for datetime and causal_edges, and states the return value (new fact_id). It does not cover failure modes or overwrite behavior, but it provides genuine behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying necessary information: purpose, write/auth requirement, format constraints, and return value. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important facts are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers required datetime fields, the causal_edges format, auth, and return, which makes a basic call possible. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should also explain optional parameter behavior such as valid_until and confidence, and provide more detail on edge cases. It is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It does so for documented_at/valid_from (ISO 8601) and causal_edges (JSON array shape), but it leaves content, confidence, and valid_until semantics to inference. Partial compensation for a 6-parameter schema merits a middle score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a bounded atomic fact to the Temporal Causal Reasoning Graph.' It clearly distinguishes this write/ingestion tool from read/query siblings like reasoning_query, reasoning_critique, and reasoning_explore. The title is null, but the description fully compensates.

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?

The write-operation statement and 'Add a bounded atomic fact' imply when to use the tool, and the required --allow-write flag gives a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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