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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the editor role requirement, the ~1-minute propagation delay, and the critical data-loss rule that any omitted piece is deleted. The destructive-replace semantics sit in mild tension with destructiveHint=false, though the tool is conceptually an edit rather than a resource deletion, so this reads as rich disclosure rather than a hard contradiction.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the procedure, each carrying load-bearing information (prerequisite, replace contract, timing, permission). No filler.

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 replace-content edit with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: prerequisite read, the all-pieces contract, the deletion consequence, propagation timing, and the required role. Nothing an agent must know before invoking is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the replace-all contract for 'pieces' (all pieces, same order, omitted ones deleted) and names the source for both IDs (dosai_read_knowledge_document / dosai_list_knowledge-derived IDs). It clarifies semantics the schema alone does not.

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 ('Change the text of a knowledge base document') with a concrete example ('e.g. a price'), so the agent knows exactly what it mutates. However, it does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling dosai_update_knowledge_document, leaving the agent to guess which of the two to pick.

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 a clear workflow: first read with dosai_read_knowledge_document, then submit all pieces in order. That is strong prerequisite guidance, but there are no when-not conditions and no explanation of when to prefer this over dosai_update_knowledge_document.

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