knowledge_base_update

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

The description only says 'Update', which aligns with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false from annotations. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as side effects on related data, permissions (e.g., requiring write access to the knowledge base), or idempotency implications. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds no value beyond the bare action.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it omits any helpful details such as what fields are updateable or that all three parameters are required. It is not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of useful context. It is appropriately sized for a trivial operation, yet lacks explanatory depth.

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?

The tool is simple: update an existing FAQ with id, question, and answer. The schema documents all parameters, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds the fact that the FAQ must 'exist', which is useful, but it does not mention that the ID must correspond to a valid FAQ entry or any other practical caveats. For a simple update, this is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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% with all three parameters (id, question, answer) clearly described as strings. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about parameter relationships, formats, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. No extra semantic value is contributed, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('an existing knowledge base FAQ'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like knowledge_base_update_knowledge_base. It is not as rich as mentioning what fields are updatable, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., knowledge_base_create or knowledge_base_delete). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing FAQ ID, or scenarios where this should be preferred. Usage context is entirely absent.

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