update_resource

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 by specifying the mutation nature ('update'), prerequisites (must use other tools first), and operational constraints ('maintain consistency'). It also describes return data format. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements that would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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, usage recommendations, return data) and each sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for a mutation tool with prerequisites. Some minor redundancy exists between 'use cases' and the purpose statement, but overall it's efficiently organized.

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 does well by explaining prerequisites, usage patterns, and return format. It provides operational context missing from structured fields. The main gap is lack of error handling or side effect information, but given the comprehensive usage guidance and return data description, 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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions what fields can be updated but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage or constraints.

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 as 'Update resource information in the knowledge graph' with specific mention of what can be modified (title, description, metadata, documentation). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_node' and 'update_edge' by focusing specifically on resources. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'save_resource' which might have overlapping functionality.

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, step-by-step usage recommendations including prerequisites (must use list_graphs and get_node_details first), specific sequencing instructions, and guidance on what to update ('only update fields that need to be modified'). It also mentions maintaining consistency in naming, giving clear operational context.

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