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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses that the write is whole-document, not partial, and that previous versions are kept dated in history. But it omits permissions, failure/conflict behavior, and whether the update is reversible beyond history retention.

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 sentences with no waste. The core behavior and version-history nuance are front-loaded, followed by the essential input expectation.

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 six-parameter update tool with rich schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavioral context: full replacement, history retention, and required title/content. It does not describe the return value, but with no output schema that is a minor omission rather than a critical gap.

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 defines all six parameters well. The description reinforces that title and content must be sent each time and mentions brands/addresses, but does not add meaningful semantics for doc_id or sort_order 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 action and resource: rewriting a knowledge doc whole while preserving the previous version in history. It is clear enough to distinguish this from generic create/delete operations, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools like create_knowledge or delete_knowledge to sharpen the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to rewrite an existing doc, and send title/content each time. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus create_knowledge, delete_knowledge, or list_knowledge, nor does it state when not to use it.

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