cortex_update_assumption

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this mutates stored assumption state, whether prior statuses are overwritten or kept as history, what permissions are needed, or whether the call is reversible — all critical for a write operation.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally fine. But the brevity comes at the cost of substance — nothing in the sentence is wasted, yet nothing beyond the bare action is conveyed.

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, and the parameter set is small and flat. Still, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description omits the mutation semantics and status-value meaning an agent would want before calling it.

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% across four required parameters, so the description must compensate. It only gestures at 'status' and 'reason'; project_id and assumption_id are never explained, and the four enum values (unverified/supported/refuted/inconclusive) are not given any meaning or selection guidance.

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 names a verb ('Record') and a resource ('assumption status and its reason'), so the general action is inferable. However, 'record' is ambiguous between appending a status observation and mutating the assumption itself, and the sibling cortex_track_assumption is not mentioned, so an agent cannot cleanly distinguish the two.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. With siblings like cortex_track_assumption and cortex_add_evidence in the same family, the agent is left to guess which tool applies.

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