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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds nothing beyond these – it doesn't say what delete destroys, whether removal from an agent is reversible, or that assign/remove mutate which agents can use a source. For a multi-action tool with a destructive verb (delete) present, the description's silence is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded with the action-set and resource. No filler. The second sentence clarifies the resource without padding.

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?

Given 10 parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It omits when-to-use, the semantics of assign/remove versus create+assign, and any mutation caveats – leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema alone.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly, including the nuanced type/single_page interaction. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the action list, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (knowledge sources) and enumerates all seven actions (create, list, get, update, delete, assign, remove) clearly. This distinguishes it from sibling managers like gnosari_manage_instructions or gnosari_manage_traits. It doesn't differentiate its scope from generic CRUD siblings, but the resource is well-defined.

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 description lists action verbs but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about the tools that consume knowledge sources. The generic 'Manage Knowledge' scope overlaps with other sibling tools, yet nothing routes the agent between them.

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