nexo_claim_add

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Add' which implies creation, but fails to mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens on duplicate claims. It adds little beyond the name.

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 sentence with 9 words, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, highly concise.

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?

Given no output schema and minimal schema descriptions, the description should be more thorough. It omits important context about parameter roles, defaults, and the overall structure of a claim. Incomplete for a creation tool with 7 parameters.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'provenance, evidence, and freshness' which map to some parameters, but does not explain all seven parameters (domain, confidence, source_type, source_id, etc.) or their semantics.

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 clearly states 'Add a structured claim' which is a specific verb+resource. It mentions key attributes (provenance, evidence, freshness) and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get', 'search', 'verify' by indicating creation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when not to, nor does it mention alternatives. The usage is implied by the sibling context, but no direct guidance is provided.

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