kb_update_document_metadata

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

The annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining that the operation is a full replacement ('in full'), that it does not merge or re-embed, and how to remove keys. It lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or return values, but the provided behavioral traits go beyond what the name or schema alone imply.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary detail, providing essential behavioral information in a compact form.

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 has no annotations beyond a title and no output schema, so the description needs to be comprehensive. It covers the core operation and key constraints (full replacement, no re-embed, removal method, searchability). However, it does not mention what happens on success/failure, the return format, or the purpose of the 'config' parameter, leaving some gaps for an agent trying to use it reliably.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the 'metadata' parameter as a 'single-level key/value hash' and how to remove keys, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain 'config', nor does it add details for 'project_id' or 'document_id', although those are fairly self-explanatory. The compensation is partial.

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 function: 'Replace a document's metadata (single-level key/value hash) in full'. It uses a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('document's metadata'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like kb_update_document by focusing solely on metadata. The phrase 'no merge, no re-embed' further clarifies the exact scope.

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 on when to use the tool: when you need to perform a full replacement of metadata, not a merge. It also notes that the result is 'Filterable via kb_search', implying usage after metadata changes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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