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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and idempotent, and the description still adds substantive context beyond them: detail is replaced wholesale rather than deep-merged, subtype is immutable, a permission check is a prerequisite, and the updated resource with current permissions is returned. The replacement-vs-merge distinction is exactly the kind of non-obvious destructive behavior an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the patch-only-changed-fields rule, then broken into short paragraphs for the two gotchas, the prerequisite, and the return value. Every sentence carries information that is not already in the schema or annotations.

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 nine-parameter mutation with a nested references array and no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk semantics (destructive replacement of detail, immutable subtype), the permission prerequisite, and what comes back. It is not fully complete on field-level meaning for the temporal, hierarchy, and classification fields, but the destructive and idempotent annotations plus the create_resource sibling reduce the gap.

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 only 11%, so the description carries most of the burden; it clarifies the two riskiest parameters (id as the required target, and detail as a wholesale replacement of unstructured JSON keyed by subtype). It says nothing about label, status, parentId, validFrom/validUntil, references, or classification, leaving most of the nine parameters undocumented beyond bare schema types and enums.

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 and resource ("Update an existing resource") plus the key operational rule ("only the fields you want to change"), which separates it cleanly from the create_* and update_concept/update_goal siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: retrieve with engramic_topic by ID first to confirm existence and check permissions. That is a concrete when-to-use-before and names the sibling to use for the read. No explicit when-not-to-use case (e.g. what to do when the resource does not exist) is stated.

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