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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the essential post-call workflow (`agent_train`), the permission requirement, and the boundary that this tool does not create or delete knowledge entries. These are meaningful behavioral details that prevent incorrect agent behavior.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds the critical follow-up, scope boundary, and permission requirement in compact sentences. Every sentence carries useful information for invocation.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and useful annotations, the description covers the important gaps: follow-up training, one-agent scope, non-creation/non-deletion boundaries, and permissions. No output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces scope and inclusion/exclusion semantics; it does not add parameter-level syntax or edge-case meaning 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: include or exclude a knowledge entry for one agent. It also distinguishes the operation from `kb_upsert` creation and deletion behavior, so an agent can tell what this tool does without inspecting the schema.

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?

It gives the critical follow-up requirement: run `agent_train` afterwards or the change has no effect on answers. It also names the sibling alternative for creating entries (`kb_upsert`), states that this tool neither creates nor deletes, and notes the permission prerequisite.

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