upsert_memory_node

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It covers a specific error case but does not explain success behavior, idempotency, permissions, or side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites or creates new nodes).

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?

Only two sentences, but the first is dense and technical. The warning is clear and front-loaded. Could be more concise by removing 'persistent Graph CRM node mapping' and stating the core function more directly.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks details about return values, side effects, or how this tool fits into the broader memory workflow. The warning about the error leaves out what happens when the dependency is present, making it feel incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters; it does not explain relationships between them or provide usage examples beyond the schema.

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?

Description states it executes 'persistent Graph CRM node mapping for long-term memory RAG retrieval', which is a specific verb-resource pair. However, the jargon-heavy phrasing may obscure the core action compared to simpler sibling tools like 'memory_save' or 'update_memory'.

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?

Explicitly warns about a specific error condition ('MISSING_SOUL_DEPENDENCY') and instructs the agent to execute 'purchase_undesirables_license_key' as a precondition. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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