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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'MUTATES' and PUT semantics. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: partial-update behavior, JSON body handling, and that the path id is not sent in the body.

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 compact and front-loads the mutation warning and resource. Every sentence carries operational information without repetition.

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 a nested `fields` object and no output schema, the description covers endpoint, update semantics, partial writes, and path-id handling. It leaves out response/error behavior and auth requirements, but the schema and destructive annotation already carry much of the remaining context.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 would be acceptable, but the description adds meaningful guidance about `fields` as a passthrough for current_version/body and about `id` being path-only. It clarifies how nested `fields` values are used beyond the schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it updates an existing KnowledgeOwl article. It also names the API endpoint, which makes its purpose distinct from create, get, list, and update_category siblings.

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 clearly explains that only included fields are changed and directs agents to use the `fields` passthrough for current_version and other documented fields. It does not explicitly exclude alternate update paths or describe when to prefer another sibling, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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