knowledge_relation_update

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does state the primary mutation effect and that endpoints are preserved, which is meaningful. It omits what happens to unspecified fields, failure behavior, permissions, or idempotency, so transparency is only partial.

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 sentence that front-loads the update target and ends with a valuable constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. An agent is left without guidance on return values, failure modes, or the exact roles of several parameters, so the description is not complete enough on its own.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It gives update roles to relation_id, evidence, weight, and relation_type, and 'provenance' loosely covers actor/model/session/source. It does not clearly clarify confidence or source, so compensation is incomplete.

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 names a specific action (update), a specific resource (evidence/provenance/weight/type of an edge), and a key constraint (by relation ID; endpoints stay stable). This clearly distinguishes it from knowledge_relation_add, knowledge_relation_remove, and knowledge_update without needing to open sibling schemas.

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?

It conveys clear context: use this when an explicit relation already exists and you have its relation_id to revise metadata, not to change endpoints. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as knowledge_relation_remove or knowledge_relation_add for endpoint restructuring, so it stops short of a full 5.

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