update_fact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses immutability of core fields and the return type ('Updated fact as dict'). However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., missing fact_id) or idempotency. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about failure cases.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a critical usage note, a clear Args list with behaviors, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given 5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool adequately. It explains all parameters, return value, and key constraint. It lacks error handling or idempotency notes, but neighboring siblings provide context. Overall, sufficiently 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 coverage is 0%, so description must fully explain parameters. The Args section provides detailed semantics: fact_id (UUID), context (omit/null unchanged, empty string sets blank), confidence (0-1.0), valid_from/valid_to (ISO format, omit/null unchanged, empty string clears). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type and default information.

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 'Update an existing fact's metadata.' It specifies the action (update) and the resource (fact metadata). The note about immutability of subject, predicate, and object distinguishes it from siblings like delete_fact and add_fact.

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 explicitly states when NOT to use this tool: 'Subject, predicate, and object are immutable (delete and recreate if needed).' This provides clear guidance. It lacks explicit mention of alternatives but the sibling list includes delete_fact and add_fact for those cases.

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