Set lifecycle frontmatter

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that this write operation only changes a fixed set of fields, preserves the Markdown body, and automatically updates a timestamp. It also clarifies the invalidation pattern (invalid_at + invalidated_by) and rejected format, providing substantial behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 one dense paragraph but every sentence adds value: use case, invalidation preference, rejected format, and explicit list of changed fields. It is front-loaded with 'Use this when' making the primary trigger immediately clear. No wasted words.

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's complexity (10 params, destructive write), the description covers when to use, what changes, what is preserved, and how to format specific fields. With an output schema present, the lack of return-value descriptions is acceptable. The description is comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description names the key parameters (origin, confidence, last_verified, supersedes, rejected, valid_from, invalid_at, invalidated_by) and explains the value format for rejected ('option -- reason'). It does not explain expected_hash or rel_path, but the lifecycle semantics give enough meaning for most parameters.

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 identifies the tool as updating frontmatter fields on an existing memory note, with a specific focus on lifecycle changes (verified, superseded, confidence changes). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it only changes specific fields and preserves the Markdown body, which differentiates it from body-editing tools like patch_note_section.

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?

Provides explicit 'when to use' guidance: lifecycle changes such as verification, supersession, or confidence adjustments. It also gives a strong preference guideline (invalidate over delete/rewrite) and explains the rejected entries format, telling the agent when and how to record discarded options.

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