mcp_kb_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists possible actions (link, unlink, refresh_links, update_content, cleanup_stale) and returns, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether actions are destructive, authorization requirements, or side effects (e.g., unlink or cleanup_stale deleting data). Some transparency, but incomplete.

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 extremely concise, using a docstring format with a one-line summary followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a solid overview of actions, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks details on how 'cleanup_stale' works, error handling, or prerequisites, which would make it fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for most parameters by specifying usage contexts (e.g., 'global_vuln_id: Target vulnerability ID (for link/unlink/update_content)'). However, 'content_patch' is only described as 'Content update patch', lacking detail on format or structure, which prevents a perfect score.

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 purpose as managing global↔project links and content for knowledge base maintenance. It specifies a verb ('manage') and resource ('global ↔ project links and content'), and the sibling tool 'mcp_audit_architecture' is distinct, so differentiation is clear.

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 for knowledge base operations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The sibling tool 'mcp_audit_architecture' is not contrasted.

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