add_or_update_ker

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

Annotations already declare a destructive, non-idempotent, write operation. The description adds only the draft scope and repeats the add/update action implied by the name, without explaining what gets overwritten, permission needs, or the effect on existing relationships.

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 efficiently concise, though its brevity contributes to under-specification elsewhere.

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 mutation tool with eleven parameters and many required domain fields, a one-line description is far too sparse. An output schema exists, so return values need not be covered, but parameter and behavioral context are 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 0% and the description provides no parameter semantics. Eleven parameters (seven required) including identifier, upstream, downstream, status, attributes, and provenance are left entirely unexplained.

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 a specific action (add or update) and resource (key event relationship) scoped to a draft. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling add_or_update_ke, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'within a draft' gives minimal implied context, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over add_or_update_ke or list_kers, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred.

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