knowerage_create_or_update_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the file format (markdown with YAML frontmatter including source path, covered line ranges, and dates) and the create-or-update behavior. However, it does not specify potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files) or error conditions, slightly reducing transparency.

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 concise, with three sentences covering purpose, usage guidelines, and follow-up. It is front-loaded with the primary role and avoids unnecessary words, earning 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?

Given the tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and usage context but omits details about the return value or what happens on errors. The mention of YAML frontmatter with 'dates' is ambiguous (not a parameter), and the follow-up step suggests some output but it's not described.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it restates the path convention and YAML frontmatter details but offers no new insights into parameter usage or constraints.

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 clearly states it is the PRIMARY tool for persisting legacy/source code analysis, specifically creating or updating an analysis markdown file under knowerage/analysis/ with YAML frontmatter. It distinguishes itself from generic file-write tools, making its purpose and scope very clear.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('whenever the user asks to analyze, document, or explain a source file and Knowerage is in the tool list') and when not to ('do not use generic file-write tools alone for knowerage analysis paths'). Also provides a follow-up step ('Follow with knowerage_reconcile_record on the same analysis_path'), giving comprehensive guidance.

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