Update knowledge base item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top of that: it does not say which fields are mutable, whether omitted fields are preserved or wiped, or what happens on an unknown ID. With annotations carrying the load the bar is lower, but this adds zero behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but structurally it is clean.

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?

This is a destructive mutation whose 'input' is an unconstrained object with additionalProperties, so the agent has no indication of which fields are updatable or how partial updates behave; the description should compensate here. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input semantics gap leaves the definition materially incomplete for a destructive tool.

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 knowbaseId and the generic 'input' object are already described in the schema. The description's 'by ID' merely echoes the knowbaseId parameter and offers no meaning for the free-form 'input' payload, which is where the real ambiguity lies. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Update') and resource ('knowledge base article') with an addressing scope ('by ID'), so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the adjacent create/delete/get/list knowbase siblings beyond the verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over glpi_get_knowbase_item, glpi_create_knowbase_item, or glpi_update_knowbase_category, nor any prerequisite (e.g. must the item exist, does it require edit rights). Only the verb implies usage.

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