update_knowledge

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful patch semantic that unspecified fields are left untouched, but says nothing about what tags do (replace vs append), what the call returns, or whether auth/scoping is required. Annotation-vs-description is consistent, so no contradiction.

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 tight sentences with the identity/target information front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and 43% schema coverage, the description should say more about return behavior, tag replacement semantics, and any authorization requirements. It adequately covers the update model but leaves real gaps an agent would want filled.

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 43%: id, verified, and cross_client_safe are documented in the schema, while tags, title, content, and category carry only self-evident names. The description's 'only provided fields are updated' clarifies overall patch behavior, but it adds no per-parameter meaning (e.g., whether tags overwrite the existing set), so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 an existing knowledge base entry by ID') and makes the lookup key explicit. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like add_knowledge or delete_knowledge, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus add_knowledge, delete_knowledge, or search_bus, and no prerequisites or permission notes. 'Only provided fields are updated' is behavioral semantics, not usage routing, so the agent gets no decision guidance.

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