mcp_aql_update

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

Annotations already flag destructive behavior, and the description adds specificity: 'potentially overwriting previous values' and the memory append-only constraint. This tells the agent what is at risk and for which element types the operation is unsafe.

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 summary is front-loaded and information-dense. The quick-start examples are numerous but each demonstrates a different element type or operation, and every section has a clear purpose. Slightly longer than minimal, but not padded.

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?

The definition covers operation types, element types, limitations, examples, and discovery. It doesn't define upgrade_element beyond its name or describe batch execution, but the input schema handles the batch property and the introspection pointer compensates for per-operation requirements.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are generic. The tool description adds concrete operation values, element types, and multiple nested-parameter examples, and it recommends introspection to discover required parameters.

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 opening sentence states a clear modifying/overwrite action, and the supported operations and element types are enumerated. It is plainly differentiated from siblings by being the update tool, and the memory note even routes CREATE operations away.

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?

The description explicitly tells agents not to use edit_element on memories and points to addEntry (CREATE) as the correct alternative. It also instructs agents to use mcp_aql_read for introspecting required parameters. It doesn't spell out all create/delete routing, but the context is clear.

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