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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: old chunks are removed and the document is automatically re-indexed. It also clarifies target-account behavior and admin restrictions. Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description appropriately augments rather than repeats that safety profile.

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 three focused sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the purpose, then explains the re-indexing side effect and account targeting.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It does omit that the document name/title can also be updated, which is a small completeness gap even though the schema documents it.

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 five parameters, including content, tags, document_id, name, and target_user_id. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: updating the content or tags of an existing knowledge base document. It implicitly distinguishes itself from create/delete by saying 'documento existente', but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or mention that the name field can also be updated.

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 provides useful context that without target_user_id the update applies to the authenticated account, and that only platform admins may pass target_user_id. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus create_kb_document, delete_kb_document, or search_knowledge_base, nor does it give explicit exclusions.

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