update_knowledge_base

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operations but lacks details on side effects (e.g., time to update, network requirements, whether updates are destructive). The description does not address authorization or rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and operations. Every word serves a function with no redundancy.

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 tool's multiple modes and complexity, the description is insufficient. It lacks details about diff output, statistics format, prerequisites, or expected behavior. With no output schema or annotations, the agent may need additional context to use this tool correctly.

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% coverage, so parameters are already well-described. The description adds a high-level context (managing the KB with four modes) but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 that the tool manages the LOL knowledge base and lists four specific actions (update all, update specific, diff, stats). This differentiates it from sibling tools which focus on analysis and discovery rather than knowledge base management.

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 when to use the tool (when managing the knowledge base) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Given the large number of siblings, a clearer usage guide would be beneficial.

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