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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the authorization requirement (editor role) and the scope limitation that document text is off-limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight sentences that lead with the core operations; every clause earns its place (behavior, scope exclusion, prerequisite) with no filler or 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 only two required ids and no output schema, the description covers what changes, what it does not change, and the permission gate. Given the annotations already handle the safety profile, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description maps the meaningfully-named operations to parameters: switch on/off implies is_active, rename implies name, and always-attach implies always_include, adding semantic signal on top of 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 specific operations (switch on/off, rename, always-attach) on a named resource (knowledge document), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It implicitly separates itself from text editing, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling dosai_edit_knowledge_document, which limits it to a 4.

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?

Provides clear context and an explicit when-not ('the text itself cannot be edited here: add a new document instead') plus a prerequisite ('requires editor role'). It stops short of naming the specific alternative tool or covering all sibling conflicts, so it is not a 5.

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