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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: optimistic concurrency via expectedUpdatedAt, the rejection of stale writes, and a mandatory human-approval gate before confirmed=true. It stops short of saying what happens to an existing title when title is null, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Three short sentences: what it does, the read-then-update precondition, then the approval-and-confirm step. Nothing is repeated and the destructive action is front-loaded.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety path (read first, concurrency token, explicit approval, confirmed gate) well. The remaining gap is return behavior and the exact null-handling semantics for title/content, which an agent would have to discover by calling.

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 60% — id, confirmed and expectedUpdatedAt are documented in-schema, while title and content are not. The description compensates by saying "title and/or complete text," clarifying that either or both nullable required fields may be supplied, and ties expectedUpdatedAt to the stale-edit rejection rather than just naming it.

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 ("Replace") and resource ("title and/or complete text of one Knowledge Base text page"), with scope limited to a single page. This is unambiguously distinct from the sibling knowledge_create_page and knowledge_get_page without needing to open either 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?

Gives an explicit ordered workflow: read with knowledge_get_page first, pass its ID and expectedUpdatedAt, show the exact result, get explicit approval, then call with confirmed=true. The precondition and the alternative failure mode (stale edit rejected) are both spelled out rather than left to inference.

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