update_relation

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

There are no annotations to declare safety or mutation, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose what happens if the relation doesn't exist, whether the update is partial or full replacement, how versioning is handled, or if there are any validation constraints. The vague 'enhanced properties' adds no concrete behavioral detail.

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 a single, grammatically correct sentence that is easy to parse. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the verb and object. It could be slightly more informative, but it contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the complexity of the nested 'relation' object with numerous optional fields, the lack of output schema, and no annotations, this description is too minimal. It fails to clarify critical update semantics such as which fields are required for identification, whether the operation is a partial merge or full replacement, and the meaning of 'enhanced properties'. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description provides no parameter-level detail. 'Enhanced properties' gives a hint that the nested 'relation' object contains updates, but it does not explain which fields identify the relation versus which ones are updated. With low schema_description_coverage (0%), the description fails to compensate, despite the schema having well-documented fields.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('existing relation'), and specifies the context ('Memento MCP knowledge graph memory'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_relations and delete_relations by intentionally targeting existing relations, and the 'enhanced properties' hints at additional attribute updates.

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 word 'existing' implies the relation must already be present, suggesting this is not for creation, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like delete and recreate, nor any prerequisites for updating a relation.

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