record_truth_assertion

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It usefully discloses bitemporal semantics (valid_* = represented-world validity, known_* = transaction time) and a genuine domain rule that prose/confidence alone cannot ground an assertion and Evidence or link IDs are required before it is marked SUPPORTED. It does not say what happens when that requirement is unmet (rejected, pending, error), nor anything about idempotency or permission requirements.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the parameter-family semantics and the grounding rule. No filler, though the unexplained jargon reduces the value of the terseness.

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 17-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers the central domain rule (grounding requirement) but omits usage routing, most parameter meanings, and failure behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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 17 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the valid_*/known_* parameter families and ties evidence/support/assumption/dependency links to the grounding rule, but leaves work_ref, subject_id, predicate, actor_id, turn_id, assertion_key, contradicts and supersedes_assertion_id entirely unexplained, and 'value' has no type at all.

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 ('Record one canonical BTTM/1 assertion') and scopes it to a VERIFY or MODIFY work turn, which separates it from siblings like invalidate_truth_assertion or truth_assertion_status. The domain vocabulary (BTTM/1, MangoMe transaction time) is never defined, but the action itself 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite many truth-related siblings (truth_at, truth_assertion_status, invalidate_truth_assertion). The only contextual constraint is that the assertion sits under a VERIFY/MODIFY work turn, which is implied rather than explained.

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