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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable scope: 'Affects every environment and later runs,' which tells the agent that a change is global and persistent. It does not cover retry semantics or the idempotency_key, but it meaningfully extends beyond annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the most important behavioral note. No filler or repetition.

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 covers the core operation and scope, but given the low schema coverage and multiple parameters, it leaves gaps that an agent must infer from the schema alone. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but input semantics are under-described.

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 coverage is only 43%, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'expected revision' and 'reason' but leaves several parameters (status, content, idempotency_key) undocumented in both schema and description. The brief mention of revision is helpful but insufficient for full clarity.

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 states a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('existing company knowledge document'), with two key required inputs mentioned. It distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like get or list, but does not explicitly contrast with the create or history tools.

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 phrase 'Edit an existing' implies usage for modifying existing documents, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like summer_knowledge_create or summer_knowledge_history, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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