Build a structured loss-ledger entry capturing a false claim, why it was wrong, corrected form, evidence references, and a prevention rule; it does not save the entry.
Create a structured loss-ledger entry. This tool does not persist it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | Yes | ||
| why_wrong | Yes | ||
| evidence_refs | Yes | ||
| corrected_form | Yes | ||
| prevention_rule | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does deliver one critical trait: 'This tool does not persist it' clarifies this is a non-persisting/dry-run style operation, which matters for a tool named 'record_loss'. However, it omits permissions, idempotency, and side effects beyond the persistence caveat.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key caveat. No filler; every clause earns its place.
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 tool with 5 required, undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin; it leaves parameter meaning and usage context entirely unaddressed. The output schema does relieve it of explaining return values, and the non-persistence caveat is a valuable addition, but the parameter gap dominates.
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 are 5 required parameters, so the description must compensate, but it adds no meaning for claim, why_wrong, corrected_form, evidence_refs, or prevention_rule. Only the phrase 'loss-ledger entry' gives vague thematic framing; an agent still lacks syntactic/format guidance for every required field.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Create a structured loss-ledger entry') that an agent can distinguish from siblings like classify_claim or validate_evidence. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from the other ledger/evidence-building tools in the sibling set.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the sibling set (validate_evidence, classify_claim, build_verification_plan) is never referenced. The only conditional information is the non-persistence note, which is behavioral rather than usage-directional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.