knowmind_update_fact

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, etc.), the description reveals key behaviors: the old memory is marked with valid_to=now, the new memory is created with valid_from=now, and the old one is not deleted but linked via SUPERSEDES. It also discloses write-scope requirements and that it returns the new memory id, all essential for correct invocation.

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 structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then elaborates the process, whether to use it, and return value. It's slightly dense in the last sentence (covering return, write scope), but every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff.

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 description is complete for a mutable tool with no output schema: it states the return (new memory id), the required permissions (write scope), the change semantics (not destructive), and the intended use case. Nothing an agent needs to know to choose and invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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%; every parameter already has a clear meaning. The description does not further explain parameter-specific behavior (e.g., what update_reason is used for), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate – it adds no redundant detail but also doesn't go beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'supersede a known fact' and the resource (knowmind memory), with explicit semantics: valid_to=now, valid_from=now, and SUPERSEDES link. It distinguishes itself from knowmind_store_memory by naming that sibling and the exact condition ('when a fact CHANGES').

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 says 'Use this instead of knowmind_store_memory when a fact CHANGES (address moved, contract renewed)' and highlights that old statements are not deleted, making the tool suitable for auditable timelines. It also mentions the query tool knowmind_recall_at_time for reading history, providing clear context and alternatives.

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