cortex_track_assumption

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not state that this is a persistent write, whether duplicates are rejected, whether a confidence value is later mutable, or whether any permission is required. It only conveys that the assumption is treated as unverified and that confidence is caller-supplied rather than system-derived.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action comes first and the optional qualifier trails. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a four-parameter mutation tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for an unannotated write tool with 0% parameter coverage the description omits scoping, side effects, and identity of the required inputs. It falls well short of what an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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 compensate, and it only clarifies the 'confidence' parameter (optional, caller-reported) while project_id, statement, and context are left entirely to the bare schema types. Two required parameters are undocumented in both places.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Register') with a specific resource ('assumption') and qualifies it as 'unverified', which implicitly distinguishes it from cortex_create_claim and cortex_add_evidence. It never names a sibling, so the differentiation is inferred from the noun rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of cortex_update_assumption for modifying an existing assumption versus registering a new one. The word 'unverified' weakly implies the domain but leaves selection between siblings to the agent.

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