knowledge_freigeben

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses that only visibility is flipped, that content/summary remain empty, and that the node reappears in search/recall. It does not cover error cases, permissions, or the exact success response, but the core side-effect profile is clearly stated.

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 compact sentences, no fluff, and the most important behavioral distinction ('undo withdrawal', 'only flips visibility') is front-looed. Every clause earns its place.

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 state-flipping operation with no annotated safety profile or output schema, the description covers purpose, expected effect, and key limitation. It leaves out a note on whether success confirmation or errors are returned, but the tool is simple enough that the provided information is nearly complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter including the 'exactly one of node_id/path required' constraint and the fallback values for actor/model/session. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 opens with an explicit verb and target: 'Undo a knowledge_zurueckziehen', and names the observable effect ('the node reappears in knowledge_search/recall'). It distinguishes itself from its sibling inverse by clarifying exactly what it does and does not do, so an agent can tell it apart from knowledge_zurueckziehen and knowledge_update.

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?

The description gives a clear usage context: this is the inverse of knowledge_zurueckziehen, used to reverse a withdrawal. It also states when not to expect more ('Restores nothing'), preventing misuse as a content-restoration or editing tool. This is sufficient guidance relative to the sibling list.

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