Correct claim

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, which covers the mutation aspect. The description adds 'with auditable evidence,' implying that actions are logged or supported by evidence—information not present in annotations. However, it does not elaborate on the nature of the audit trail or what happens to the superseded/retracted claim, so the added value is modest.

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?

A single, compact sentence conveys the core purpose without wasted words. The action and key qualifier are front-loaded, making it easy to scan. No redundant phrases or unnecessary detail are present.

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 destructive mutation tool with 14 parameters, a one-line description is severely insufficient. It omits operational context (e.g., what constitutes a 'current claim', how to specify the target, acceptable evidence types, return behavior, or error conditions). Combined with no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description leaves critical gaps that will impede correct invocation.

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?

With only 14% schema description coverage and 14 parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining key parameters. It does not elaborate on claim_id, operation, rationale, valid_from, valid_to, or other fields. The phrase 'auditable evidence' hints at rationale/excerpt but does not map to any parameter, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for required inputs.

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 the action ('Supersede or retract') and the resource ('a current claim'), and includes the qualifier 'with auditable evidence' that signals a specific audit-trail behavior. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like record (creating new claims) and forget (possibly deletion) by focusing on correction of existing claims.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies correction of existing claims but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or contrast with siblings. An agent must infer usage from the operation names alone.

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