update_concept

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: merging frontmatter_updates into existing metadata, refreshing the timestamp, and null semantics for body and frontmatter keys. This is substantial, though it does not mention permissions or error conditions.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by two critical behavioral clarifications. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a moderate-complexity update tool, the description covers essential behaviors: merge semantics, timestamp refresh, and null handling for body/frontmatter. The output schema covers return values, so no need to describe them. It could benefit from explicit prerequisite or permission notes, but overall it is sufficiently complete for agent invocation.

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?

The input schema already describes all parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by clarifying that frontmatter_updates are merged (partial update) and that null frontmatter keys remove them, which goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions. Body null behavior is also reinforced.

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 clearly states 'Update an existing OKF concept document,' using a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('OKF concept document'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_concept, delete_concept, and get_concept.

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?

The phrase 'Update an existing' provides clear context that this tool is for modifying existing concepts, not creating new ones or deleting. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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