mempalace_kg_add

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'Add' and mentions optional metadata, but does not disclose important behaviors such as how duplicates are handled, whether facts are overwritten, or what constraints apply (e.g., validity intervals).

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key optional aspects. Every word adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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?

The tool is a simple add operation with an output schema, and the schema covers all parameters. However, the description lacks context about side effects or failure modes, which would be important for a write operation despite the output schema. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps.

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 parameters. The description adds the notion of 'validity and provenance metadata' but does not provide extra detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline for high coverage.

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 adds a tenant-scoped temporal knowledge-graph fact, with a specific verb (Add) and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mempalace_kg_query (query) and mempalace_kg_invalidate (invalidate).

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 implies the tool is used when adding a fact, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is adequately implied but not explicitly stated.

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