update_kb_doc

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful "VG agents only" eligibility constraint, but does not disclose the key behavioral question for an update tool with 8 optional fields: whether omitted fields are left untouched or cleared, and whether metadata/content are replaced wholesale.

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 waste, with the eligibility restriction and the sibling routing both front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs to choose correctly.

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?

With 8 parameters, nested metadata, no output schema, and destructive=false, the definition should clarify partial-vs-full update semantics and what the response confirms. The content/patch guidance is strong, but the merge behavior of metadata and the effect of omitted fields remain unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the content parameter is a full rewrite of the document body and that patch_kb_doc exists specifically to avoid that. The remaining parameters (metadata merge semantics, refreshRate interaction) get no extra explanation.

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 and resource ("Update a knowledge base document") and immediately scopes it with "VG agents only." It also names the sibling patch_kb_doc and explains the differentiator (exact old_string→new_string editing), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit decision rule: for large document bodies use patch_kb_doc rather than rewriting content here. The implicit corollary (use this tool for metadata or full rewrites of small docs) is easy to derive, but there is no direct statement of when update_kb_doc is the preferred choice, and no mention of create_kb_doc vs update for new documents.

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