unmanned_assert_fact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosures. It does disclose the fact-assignment rule, the source-validation rule, the confidence semantics, and the side effect that object_label creates a stub for an unwritten concept. However, it does not explain what happens on duplicate assertions, how existing facts are treated, or whether the target entity must already exist.

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?

Every sentence carries essential operational information. The most important rule, asserting a single fact with a real source, is front-loaded, and the constraints are packed into short, unambiguous sentences without redundant wording.

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?

The description covers the most critical success criteria and constraints for an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. However, it does not explain what identifies the subject page, what happens if that page does not exist, or how duplicate or conflicting assertions are handled, leaving the agent to discover some behaviors at runtime.

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. It meaningfully explains object_entity / object_label / object_literal and clarifies the roles of source_url and confidence. But entity_id's relationship to the subject, predicate beyond having the same name, and source_title semantics are left mostly to the agent's inference.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: it asserts exactly one subject-predicate-object fact on a page. This clearly differentiates the action from sibling tools such as retract_fact, create_page, or revise_page, and makes the intended operation immediately obvious.

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?

The description gives strong contextual guidance: a source_url is mandatory, it must be a real page read outside the site, confidence must rate the source, and exactly one object variant must be used. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for the inverse or related operations, so it does not fully satisfy the 'when not to use' requirement.

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