Describe the brand better in the knowledge base

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds the important partial-update behavior: 'Only provided fields are updated; omitted fields keep their current values.' It also discloses downstream effects on generated prompts, suggestions, and analyses, which is context an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations alone. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or failure modes, but those are not required by the annotations and are minor for an update tool.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and resource. The first sentence is immediately informative; the second adds real consequence; the third disambiguates patch semantics. There is no filler or repetition of schema contents.

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 6-parameter patch-style update with complete schema and partial-update semantics in the description, the definition is largely sufficient: the agent knows what to send, what the effect is on generated content, and how omissions are handled. It does not describe the success return value or explicitly cover the empty-payload edge case, but no output schema exists and the no-op behavior follows from the stated semantics.

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: each of the six string properties already has an explanatory description and maxLength. The tool description adds a high-level grouping ('who buys it, where it sells, and what makes it distinct') and clarifies that fields are optional, but it does not add per-parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Updates') and a concrete resource ('what the project knows about the brand'), and enumerates content dimensions ('who buys it, where it sells, and what makes it distinct'). This clearly separates it from read-only sibling get_knowledge_base and from update_project/update_prompt, so an agent can identify the correct tool without ambiguity.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: the knowledge base fields drive everything PromptEye generates, so keeping them accurate is the trigger. It also clarifies partial-update semantics. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., 'use get_knowledge_base to read, update_project for project settings'), so it stops at clear context rather than explicit routing.

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