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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the meaningful behavior an agent needs: partial-update semantics (omitted field unchanged, empty string/null clears), the exact blast radius of the mutation, authorization gating (owner, or org owner/admin for shared KBs), and a failure mode (refused while suspended).

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?

Effectively four dense sentences that are front-loaded with the action and followed by the semantics that matter, with no filler. Slightly long, but every clause adds a distinct constraint rather than repeating the name or title.

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 permission-gated mutation with an output schema, full schema coverage and annotations already present, the description covers everything an agent needs before calling: what changes, what does not, how omitted vs empty fields behave, who may call it, and when it will be refused.

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 schema already documents kb_id sourcing, the 1–120 char name, and the 1,000-char description with its omit/clear semantics, so the description's parameter prose largely restates structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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+resource ("Rename a knowledge base ... and/or change its description") and immediately scopes it by declaring that documents, attachments and the embedding model are untouched, which cleanly separates it from sibling write tools like findagent_update_kb_document or findagent_bind_kb_embedding_key.

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 clear preconditions and exclusions: pass kb_id sourced from findagent_list_kbs, omitted fields are preserved, empty description clears, refused while suspended, and shared/org KB renames require owner/admin. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for the document-editing case, but the routing is strongly implied by the 'documents ... untouched' clause.

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