update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'extracts structured facts' and 'stores them for future sessions,' which implies data persistence and processing, but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a tool that appears to update persistent user context, this is a significant gap.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that directly explain the tool's purpose and mechanism. The first sentence states the action and timing, while the second explains the processing and storage. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key usage information.

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 tool that updates user context with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'structured facts' are extracted, how they're stored, what the return value or success indicators are, or any error conditions. The description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered for a tool that appears to perform persistent data updates.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all three parameters (userId, userMessage, agentResponse). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format expectations for the messages or how they're processed. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Update a user's context after an LLM interaction' with the specific action 'extracts structured facts from the conversation and stores them for future sessions.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'inject' tool by focusing on post-interaction context updates rather than data injection. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'inject' in the description text itself.

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 minimal usage guidance, stating it's used 'after an LLM interaction' but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites, or alternatives. It doesn't specify when to choose this tool over the sibling 'inject' tool or any other potential context management approaches. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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