Update a knowledge base

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

It discloses non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: partial updates, the full replacement of the faqs list when faqs is sent, and the required authorization scope knowledge_bases:write. These are critical details for safe and correct invocation.

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 short and front-loads the key behavior. However, the first sentence ('Change a knowledge base') mostly restates the title and adds little; the remaining sentences are efficient and valuable.

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers the invocation-critical facts: partial update semantics, faqs replacement, and required scope. It does not describe expected return values or errors, but those are less essential for correct selection and calling.

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 schema already documents most parameters (83% coverage), and the description adds important cross-parameter semantics: only sent fields are changed, and sending faqs replaces rather than merges the list. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not describe each parameter individually.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Change a knowledge base') and immediately clarifies the key semantic: only the fields you send are changed. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create/delete/get operations on the same resource.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the name and 'Change' suggest updating an existing knowledge base, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as create_knowledge_base or delete_knowledge_base.

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