rsi_knowledge_update

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses that merge archives rather than hard-deletes (recoverable), writes a supersedes edge, preserves id and location, and defaults keep_id to the longest/newest entry. It doesn't cover error behavior for a missing id or what the response contains, which for a mutation tool leaves a small gap.

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 English sentence is front-loaded with the core action and the merge semantics follow logically. The full Chinese restatement roughly doubles the length without adding new information, which is a deliberate bilingual choice but still dilutes density.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential risk surface: partial vs whole-field replacement, recoverability of merge, and identity preservation. It stops short of stating failure modes (nonexistent id, conflicting keep_id) or what a successful call returns.

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 100%, so every one of the 12 parameters is already documented in the schema, including id/ids requirements and the action enum. The description restates the field list and merge semantics but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline applies.

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 memory in place by id) and enumerates exactly which fields can change, which cleanly separates it from sibling rsi_knowledge_add (creation) and rsi_knowledge_delete. The two modes (update vs merge) are named up front so the agent can tell what it is invoking.

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?

"prefer updating over re-adding duplicates" is an explicit routing directive away from the add tool, and merge's purpose (combine near-duplicates) is stated. What's missing is a when-NOT clause — e.g. what to do if the id is unknown, or when to fall back to add/delete instead.

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