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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description goes well beyond, disclosing the re-queue side effect, the deliberate no-secret-in-arguments design, the no-op-and-report behavior when no key is stored, and the owner-only permission requirement. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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?

Front-loads the action and its effect, then layers constraints in descending priority. The secret-handling point is restated across two sentences ('NO API KEY IS PASSED HERE' / 'a secret never travels through a tool argument'), which is mild redundancy, but every other sentence carries real 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the remaining gaps: prerequisite state, side effect, failure/no-op behavior, and permissions. Nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single kb_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms provenance (from findagent_list_kbs) but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 — pointing an existing KB at the already-stored embedding key — plus a second concrete effect (re-queuing documents that failed on a missing key). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_knowledge_base or add_kb_document, which create or populate rather than re-point.

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?

Gives explicit triggers ('when findagent_list_kbs shows embedding_key_bound:false', 'documents are stuck failed on a missing key') and names the sibling that reports the needed signal. It also states what this tool is NOT for — adding a key, which is a web action — routing the agent away from a wrong invocation.

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