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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds blast-radius context ('Affects every environment and later runs'), but it does not explain what happens on a revision mismatch (conflict error vs. overwrite) or confirm the irreversibility of the edit.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary action and the concurrency requirement front-loaded, and a secondary impact statement after. No filler, though it is arguably sparse relative to the tool's destructive nature.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, the concurrency guard, and the blast radius. It omits permission requirements, conflict/error behavior, and what the agent should do on a stale revision, which leaves meaningful gaps.

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 adds real semantics for two parameters: 'expected revision' frames revision as an optimistic-concurrency token, and 'a reason' implies a required audit justification. However, company, document, content, status, and idempotency_key receive no added meaning, so it only partially compensates 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Edit an existing company knowledge document') and can be distinguished from siblings like summer_knowledge_create, summer_knowledge_get, and summer_knowledge_history without opening the schema. It does not explicitly reference those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or alternatives (e.g., summer_knowledge_create for new docs, summer_knowledge_history for revisions). The mention of 'expected revision' faintly implies a read-before-write workflow, but the agent must infer it.

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