ctx_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses partial-update semantics ('only the provided fields are changed; omitted fields remain unchanged') and that archiving is possible, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior on a bad id, idempotency, or side effects of the memoryKind judge lock.

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?

Three tight sentences with no redundancy. The core mutation semantics are front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information (partial update, use cases, temporal/lifecycle fields).

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what is updated, partial-update behavior, and how to archive. It falls short only on failure modes and permission requirements.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description exceeds that by adding conceptual meaning: lifecycle maps to 'maturity' and valid_from/valid_to map to 'bi-temporal validity', helping an agent reason about those fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing context entry'), and the word 'existing' implicitly separates it from the create-oriented sibling ctx_save. However, it never names an alternative tool, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 concrete usage cases: 'correct, append to, reclassify, or retire (archive) an existing entry.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, but no when-not-to-use conditions or explicit routing to siblings (e.g. ctx_save for new entries) are provided.

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