Knowledge Update

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds the partial-update contract, which is useful behavioral context — it tells the agent unspecified fields are left alone. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether changes are reversible.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the partial-update constraint front-loaded immediately after the action. Every word 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 mutation tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what it does, how to call it) but says nothing about permissions, side effects on unspecified fields, or response shape.

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%, and each parameter (prompt, positive, completion, knowledgeId, organizationId, classificationId) is documented in the schema itself, including a pointer to organization_list. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema baseline.

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+resource ('Update a knowledge entry'), which cleanly separates it from knowledge_create, knowledge_delete, and knowledge_get. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or contrast its scope with them, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Only provide fields to change' implies partial-update semantics, which is genuine usage guidance for how to call it. But there is no statement of when to choose this over knowledge_create or classification_update, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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