graph.domain.update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it updates an existing domain but does not mention whether partial updates are supported, what happens if the domain does not exist (error or fallback), whether the operation is idempotent, or if it requires specific permissions. As a mutation tool with zero annotations, this is a significant 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 description is a single concise sentence in Spanish that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is somewhat under-specified given the complexity of 8 parameters, but for the minimum viable statement it is appropriately short.

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 the tool has 8 parameters (4 required), no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, required fields validation, side effects, or how this update integrates with the catalog consistency model. The sibling tools include related CRUD operations (create, delete on graph entities) and there is no differentiation in behavior from those.

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 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the input schema beyond their titles and types. The description mentions 'dados de um domínio' without detailing which parameters are updatable, optional, or how they relate. It does not clarify that 'id' and 'project_id' are required identifiers, nor does it explain the meaning of 'slug', 'aliases', 'tags', or 'status'. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 the verb 'Atualiza' (updates) and the resource 'dados de um domínio existente no catálogo' (data of an existing domain in the catalog), clearly indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like graph.domain.create and graph.relation.create by focusing on domain update rather than creation or relation management.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as graph.domain.create (for new domains) or other update tools like graph.project.update or graph.category.update. There are no explicit when/when-not conditions or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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