create_hypotheses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does usefully disclose batch atomicity: 'The whole batch is validated before anything is written, so a rejected call creates nothing.' It also reveals dependency handling ('Parents may be created by the same call in any order'). This is solid but does not cover permissions, reversibility, or return 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: what it adds, how to express a single creation, and the safety-relevant atomicity guarantee. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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 complex creation tool with nested policies (if_exists, is_goal, exclusion groups) and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and atomicity but omits return shape and decision points not already in the schema. The schema's field descriptions help compensate, so this is adequate but not fully 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?

The description adds useful parameter-level meaning beyond the raw schema: it explains list cardinality ('Pass a list of one') and parent-edge ordering behavior. The schema itself already contains rich nested descriptions for fields like is_goal, if_exists, parent_ids, and exclusion_group, so the description does not need to repeat them, though top-level schema coverage is low.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Add one or many hypothesis nodes (with optional parent edges).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_edges by scoping the action to creating hypothesis nodes, and clarifies the one-or-many behavior.

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 operational guidance like 'Pass a list of one to create a single hypothesis' and notes that parent edges can be included in the same call, implying when this tool is useful. However, it never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools such as add_edges or states when NOT to use it, so guidance is only implied.

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