kg_add_fact

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

The description openly discloses the crucial side effect: adding a fact with the same subject-predicate but a different object supersedes the prior assertion, yet the full history is preserved. It also notes the temporal nature, aligning with the non-destructive annotation (destructiveHint false).

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 concise and well-structured, using two clear sentences. It front-loads the primary action and then explains the key behavior and use case without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description gives the core purpose and main side effect, which is adequate for a simple add-fact operation. However, given the low parameter coverage and lack of output schema details, it leaves gaps regarding parameter semantics and expected return behavior, making it only partially complete for an agent to use confidently.

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 must compensate. It mentions only the three required parameters (subject, predicate, object) but leaves the other four (context, project, confidence, invalidate_previous) unexplained. The description does not clarify the role of these additional parameters, making it insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 the tool's purpose: to record a temporal fact assertion with subject, predicate, and object. It also specifies the context of use ('evolving architectural decisions') and the key behavior of superseding prior assertions while preserving history.

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 description provides a specific use case ('Use for evolving architectural decisions') and explains the supersede-and-preserve behavior, which helps distinguish it from other memory/knowledge graph operations. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with alternatives like kg_invalidate_fact.

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