knowerage_reconcile_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool updates the registry (destructive write) and affects hashes, coverage, and freshness. While it could detail side effects like overwriting existing data, it adequately informs the agent about the tool's behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states purpose and requirement, the second provides usage guidance and consequences. Key word 'MANDATORY' is front-loaded for immediate attention.

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?

Given one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers when to invoke, what it does, and why it is important. It does not describe return values, which is acceptable without output schema.

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 100%, with parameter 'analysis_path' described as 'Relative path to the analysis file'. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond confirming it targets a single analysis file. Baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'reconciles' and the resource 'analysis file into knowerage/registry.json', and specifies the recorded elements (hashes, covered_ranges, freshness). It distinguishes from sibling tools like knowerage_reconcile_all by targeting a single analysis file.

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?

Explicitly states it is 'MANDATORY after every create_or_update_doc (or manual edit)' and advises calling 'immediately after writing analysis content'. It also warns that skipping leaves the registry wrong or stale, providing clear context on when to use and consequences of misuse.

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