retag_fact

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

It discloses that a hard recheck runs like retcon, leading to status=rejected on conflict, operation log persists, and states limitations on resetting certain fields. Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false), it provides essential behavioral details.

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 (4 lines) yet comprehensive, using clear Japanese and bullet points. 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 8 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description fully covers parameter purposes, side effects, and usage boundaries, making it complete for agent use.

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%, but the description explains each parameter's role (e.g., value/num for update, chapter for move, valid_to for ending lifespan) and clarifies that unspecified parameters remain unchanged.

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 explicitly states it updates/replaces existing facts without delete+re-add, lists specific use cases (value update, chapter move, attribute reassign), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools 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?

It provides clear when-to-use (updating values, moving chapters, etc.) and when-not-to-use (resetting valid_to/narrated_in to default), with explicit alternative (delete_fact+add_fact).

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