add_or_update_ke

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds only the 'within a draft' scope and implies upsert semantics via 'add or update', but says nothing about what an update overwrites, whether a version must exist, or any auth constraints — significant gaps for a destructive mutation.

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 wasted words. It is tight and readable, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 destructive 9-parameter mutation with 6 required fields and zero schema descriptions, one sentence is inadequate. The output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the input contract and update semantics are left entirely unaddressed.

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?

With 9 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining inputs, yet it names none of them. Required fields like draft_id, version_id, author, summary, and identifier are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 pair (add or update) and resource (key event), scoped to 'within a draft', which is concrete enough to act on. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools like add_or_update_ker or get_key_event, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from names alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite conditions, and no mention of the alternative add_or_update_ker. The agent is given no criteria for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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