update_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one genuinely useful behavioral trait — this is the only entity type supporting in-place edits, while observations and rules are append-only — but says nothing about whether content replaces or merges with existing content, whether null optional fields clear values, or permission requirements for a mutation.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the discriminating constraint. No filler.

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 annotations, no output schema, and near-zero schema coverage, the description is too thin: it omits parameter behavior, mutation semantics, and any failure/return expectations. An agent would have to guess how the optional fields are applied.

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 only 14% (only 'repo' is documented), and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond naming 'content'. Nothing explains how the six other fields (id, title, tags, category, references) behave, nor whether a required 'content' implies wholesale replacement.

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 entry's content') and immediately differentiates it from sibling entity types by noting observations and rules are append-only, so an agent can tell it apart from create_entity and the other entity tools.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition ('use to correct or extend documentation when facts change') and implicitly routes append-only cases elsewhere. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool for the append-only case, but the context is unambiguous.

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