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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: chunks are re-embedded and swapped atomically, version is bumped, previous text is unrecoverable, the call consumes the per-user import allowance because re-embedding happens on the owner's key, and access is owner-gated.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and in-place guarantee come first, followed by required inputs, edge cases, and the failure mode. Every sentence carries operational information; nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The description covers destructive irreversibility, quota impact, auth/ownership gating, unsupported document sources, and the correct alternative tool – everything an agent needs to invoke this safely.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value: it tells the agent where document_id comes from (findagent_list_kb_documents) and stresses that text must be the FULL new content with a 1 MB cap, plus the no-op semantics when text is unchanged.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: replace the text of a pasted-text KB document in place, with id/attachments/references preserved. It clearly distinguishes itself from findagent_add_kb_document, findagent_add_kb_url_document and findagent_delete_kb_document by naming the import path and the delete alternative.

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 says when this works (pasted-text documents you own) and when it does not (URL-imported or file-uploaded documents), and names the exact alternative workflow: add again with findagent_add_kb_url_document and delete the old one. Also flags the identical-text no-op case.

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