gnosys_update

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

Goes well beyond the destructive/openWorld/idempotent annotations: it discloses that hard deletion is impossible here by design, that links reject cycles, that cross-scope supersession requires allowCrossScope=true, and that superseded_by="" unlinks a predecessor. These are non-obvious behavioral constraints an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then packs archive/delete semantics, field semantics, and sibling routing into one dense paragraph. Every clause carries information, though the single-block density makes it slightly harder to scan than a bulleted or sentence-per-topic form.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape, the destructive-path policy, link/cross-scope constraints, and the create-vs-update boundary. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely appears to be missing.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real value for the trickier fields — supersedes creates predecessor links, superseded_by empty string unlinks, allowCrossScope governs cross-scope/project operations, and superseded_by maps to the CLI flag. It does not elaborate on tags/title/relevance beyond the schema's own wording.

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 memory by ID or path') plus the return shape ('confirmation and changed fields'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling gnosys_add_structured for creating new memories, so an agent can pick it apart from alternatives without opening schemas.

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 explicit routing rules: use this tool to archive/retire/'delete' via status=archived or superseded, hard deletion is human-only via the CLI, and use gnosys_add_structured for new memories. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all named.

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