update_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Update'. It does not mention that only provided fields are changed, that the entry must exist, or what response is returned. The schema's 'omit to keep unchanged' is useful, but it is not part of the description and does not carry the burden for behavioral 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 a single concise sentence: 'Update an existing knowledge entry.' No filler, front-loaded with verb and object, and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is a straightforward CRUD update with a well-specified schema, so the description is mostly sufficient. However, there is no output schema and the description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., updated entry, success flag) or any error conditions, leaving a minor gap for the agent.

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%, with each parameter described clearly (e.g., 'New tags (omit to keep unchanged)'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 the tool's action ('Update') and target ('an existing knowledge entry'). The word 'existing' distinguishes it from add_knowledge (create) and delete_knowledge, so it differentiates from sibling tools effectively.

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 implies usage (updating an already-created entry), but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like add_knowledge. The schema's 'omit to keep unchanged' hints at partial-update semantics, but the description itself does not give usage context or exclusions.

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