Update semantic context

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the crucial nuance that `statements` REPLACES the entire stored set rather than appending — the single most important behavioral fact for this tool. It also discloses the auth prerequisite (Creator role) and the hard exclusion on external contexts, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the WRITE marker, then a bulleted per-parameter breakdown that scans quickly. Every line carries a distinct constraint or side effect; nothing is redundant padding.

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, idempotent mutation with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers side effects, permissions, and invalid targets well. The only real gap is the unexplained `graph_id` parameter, which an agent must guess at or read from the schema title alone.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: it explains `name` (rename), `statements` (full replacement), `attach_to` (exact node id), `make_global` (detach + graph-wide), and the mutual exclusion between the last two. `graph_id` is never mentioned, leaving one of six parameters undocumented in both schema and 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?

Opens with an explicit verb and resource ("WRITE: change a user-managed semantic context") and names the identifier form (`ctx_id`, e.g. "semctx:<uuid>"), so it is immediately distinguishable from create_semantic_context and delete_semantic_context siblings. The qualifier "user-managed" further scopes what kind of object this acts on.

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?

Gives strong when/when-not guidance: Tableau-managed (SEMANTIC_CONTEXT_EXTERNAL) contexts can't be changed, the Creator role is required, and attach_to vs make_global are mutually exclusive ("Not both"). It never names a sibling alternative for the excluded cases, so it stops just short of a 5.

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