update_knowledge_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is useful context about permissions. However, it lacks details on mutation behavior (e.g., whether updates are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or error handling), making it insufficient for a tool that modifies data.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update a knowledge article') and includes a critical prerequisite. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a permission requirement but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, response format) and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured output information.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('sys_id' and 'fields'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('knowledge article'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_knowledge_article' by focusing on updates rather than creation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_incident' or 'update_task'.

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 an implied usage guideline by mentioning the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which indicates when the tool can be used. However, it doesn't specify when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. 'retire_knowledge_article' or 'publish_knowledge_article') or any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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