update_edge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a mutation tool ('Modify edges'), specifies required companion tools, advises partial updates ('Only update fields that need to be modified'), and describes the return data structure. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but covers core behavioral aspects.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, use cases, recommendations, return data). It's appropriately sized for a mutation tool with complex prerequisites. Some redundancy exists between 'use cases' and parameter descriptions, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with essential information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: clear purpose, detailed usage workflow, partial update guidance, and full return data specification. It doesn't cover error cases or side effects, but given the schema richness and workflow guidance, it's mostly complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it lists use cases that map to parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Modify edges in the knowledge graph.' It specifies the resource (edges) and action (modify/update). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_node' or 'update_resource' beyond the edge focus.

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 provides explicit usage recommendations with numbered steps, including prerequisites ('First call list_graphs...'), companion tools ('get_node_details'), and post-update verification ('call get_node_details again to confirm'). It clearly guides when and how to use this tool.

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