memory_graph_provenance_reconcile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that detach keeps a final source, that retire/restore preserve original provenance, that they require expectedUpdatedAt plus separate canonical review evidence, and that edge history is unchanged. Missing auth/permission requirements and error behavior keep it from a 5.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the mode-specific constraints. Dense but every sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact; slight jargon cost keeps it below 5.

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 nested mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, mode semantics, preservation guarantees, and the concurrency requirement. It does not cover failure/error cases or what a dryRun preview returns, leaving a small 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 80% (baseline 3), and the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies detach is the default action, that target sources are review evidence rather than replacement relation support, and that expectedUpdatedAt is a concurrency token required by retire/restore. This supplements rather than repeats the schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource: reconcile graph provenance and reversibly retire/restore exact edges, which distinguishes it from siblings like memory_graph_purge (destructive) and memory_graph_upsert. However, 'exact graph provenance' is dense jargon and it never explicitly names a sibling alternative for the reconcile case.

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 action semantics imply when each mode applies ('Detach preserves a final source', 'Retire/restore ... require expectedUpdatedAt plus separate canonical review evidence'), giving the agent conditions for choosing detach vs retire/restore. It stops short of stating when to use this tool versus memory_graph_purge or memory_graph_upsert, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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