add_reformation_belief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the blocking trigger and the option source, but it does not describe the effect of adding a belief, whether the choice is permanent, or validation behavior.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The trigger condition comes first, followed by the required action and source.

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 low-complexity one-parameter choice tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the key context: when to invoke it and where to get valid input. It is nearly complete, though side-effect details are absent.

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 there is no enum, so the description must compensate. It does by directing the agent to obtain the belief value from available_beliefs(kind="reformation"), though it does not specify the exact string format expected.

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 states a specific trigger and action: when turn_status shows the blocking Reformation status, pick one belief from available_beliefs(kind="reformation"). This distinguishes it from the sibling available_beliefs, which only lists options. It could be slightly clearer that the selected belief is added, but the meaning is evident.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition tied to turn_status and names the correct source for valid choices, available_beliefs(kind="reformation"). This is precise enough that an agent can route correctly without inference.

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