trace_update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state, but the description adds nothing about what the reconciliation actually does — whether TRACE.md is overwritten in place, whether changes are reversible, or what the 'force' flag overrides. For a mutation tool, that is a meaningful gap beyond the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and object come first. It is efficient, though brevity here partly reflects under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and only a readOnlyHint=false annotation needs the description to carry behavioral and parameter detail, and it does not. An agent cannot predict the effect of this call or of 'force'.

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% across three parameters, and the description only obliquely maps TRACE.md and the Specification Set to the 'trace' and 'root_spec' params. The 'force' parameter, the most behaviorally significant one, is entirely unexplained in both description and 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?

States a specific verb (reconcile) and resources (TRACE.md, Specification Set), so an agent knows this modifies an existing trace file rather than creating one. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, trace_create, but the 'existing' qualifier does most of the differentiating work.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus trace_create, validate, or validate_pair, and no preconditions (e.g. TRACE.md must already exist). Usage can only be inferred from the word 'existing'.

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