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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context about blast radius ('used by all roles and environments'), but omits retry/idempotency guidance despite an idempotency_key parameter existing.

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 with no filler, and the action is front-loaded before the constraint. The 'original revision history' clause is slightly opaque but takes minimal space.

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 7-parameter, 5-required destructive write with no output schema, the description says nothing about what the required fields mean, why a reason is mandatory, or what the upload returns. The usage constraint is covered but the invocation surface is not.

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 only 43% and the description mentions no parameter by name or meaning. The required 'reason' field, the 'path' pattern, tags, and idempotency_key semantics are left entirely to the schema, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upload a new company knowledge document') and the 'new' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling summer_knowledge_edit. The trailing phrase 'with original revision history' is somewhat ambiguous but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states a when-not condition: 'An existing document must be read and edited instead.' It routes the agent away from this tool for existing docs, though it never names the sibling (summer_knowledge_edit) explicitly and gives no positive preconditions.

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