Update Observations

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that replacement happens 'in place' on 'existing entities' (i.e., no new entities are created), but it is silent on what happens when oldContent does not match, or whether a multi-item update is atomic or partial on failure.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the routing recommendation ('Prefer this...') before the explanation after the colon. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the mutation's safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. It is nearly complete for an agent's decision-making, with only the match-failure/partial-update behavior and the shape of the 'updates' payload left unaddressed.

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 reported at 0% (the top-level 'updates' array has no description), so the description carries the burden of explaining parameter semantics — and it does not. It never explains that 'updates' is a list of {entityName, oldContent, newContent} triples or that oldContent acts as a match key, which is the single most important thing an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 ('replace observation contents on existing entities in place') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling pattern it replaces (delete_observations + add_observations). An agent knows exactly what this does versus the other 13 tools without opening the schema.

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 prescribes when to use this tool over alternatives: 'Prefer this to delete_observations followed by add_observations.' The alternative and the condition selecting it are both named, leaving nothing to inference.

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