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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-trivial context beyond that: propagation latency ('the bot starts using it within a minute') and the editor-role requirement. It stops short of mentioning content-size limits or whether duplicates are allowed.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the replacement workflow and the role prerequisite. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 simple three-parameter create tool this covers purpose, timing, routing, and permissions well. The notable remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description never says what comes back (e.g., a document id), which an agent may need to chain into follow-up calls.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including the uuid link back to dosai_list_projects, so the schema carries the load. The description's field examples ('price list, services, answers') loosely characterize the content parameter but add no format, size, or naming guidance 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a text document to the knowledge base') and disambiguates scope with concrete examples ('a price list, services, answers'). An agent can separate this from sibling add_* and edit_knowledge_document tools without opening a 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 when-to-use alternative path: to replace an outdated document, add the new one and switch off the old via dosai_update_knowledge_document. It also states the prerequisite role ('Requires editor role'), so both the routing decision and the access constraint are covered.

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