update_thought

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so safety profile is partly covered. The description usefully adds partial-update (patch) semantics, but omits the transition-enforcement behavior that is a real failure mode of this tool, leaving the agent to discover it from the enum docs.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier, then the patch constraint, then the field list. No filler; the only mild redundancy is repeating field names already in the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a mutation tool with state-machine-constrained fields, the description should warn that lifecycle changes are transition-checked and may fail, which it doesn't.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does list the five mutable fields (essence, content, priority, lifecycle status, confidence), mapping to the properties. It still says nothing about confidence bounds or that lifecycle_status must satisfy the state machine, which the schema's $defs hint at but the description never reinforces.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Update fields of an existing thought by identifier') with the scope of mutable fields enumerated. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_thought, store_thought, and delete_thought by name and verb, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

'Only the fields you supply change; omit the rest' gives clear patch-style usage guidance for the null-defaulted params. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no prerequisite on valid lifecycle transitions, and no mention of what happens if an invalid transition is requested.

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