Replace an outdated fact with new accurate content, creating an audit lineage for the change.
Replace an outdated fact with new accurate information, establishing an audit lineage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Optional category. | general |
| new_content | Yes | New updated fact content. | |
| old_fact_id | Yes | ID of the outdated fact. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool establishes an audit lineage (a meaningful side effect beyond a simple update), but does not state whether the old fact remains retrievable, whether this is reversible, or what permissions are needed 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that names the verb, the target, and the distinctive outcome (audit lineage). No waste, no repetition.
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For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should state what happens to the superseded fact and whether the operation is reversible. It hints at lineage but leaves key behavioral details unspecified, which is thin for a write operation.
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 all three parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond naming the operation, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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States a specific verb (replace/supersede) and resource (an outdated fact) with a clear goal: establishing audit lineage. This distinguishes it from chronomem_remember (store new) and chronomem_forget (remove), though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.
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?
Implies usage when a fact is outdated and should be replaced rather than deleted, but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus chronomem_forget or chronomem_remember. An agent must infer that this is for corrections with lineage rather than plain deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.