gateway_knowledge_document_put

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

Annotations provide no read-only or destructive hints, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create or update,' which signals mutation, but does not disclose upsert semantics, overwrite behavior, permissions, versioning, or whether document_id controls update versus creation. This is a significant transparency gap for a write operation.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words and the primary purpose is front-loaded. It is under-specified, but that issue is captured by other dimensions rather than by wordiness or poor structure.

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?

Despite an output schema, the tool has 8 input parameters and no annotations to clarify behavior. The description leaves an agent without critical information such as how to target a space, whether document_id is required for updates, valid values for kind/status, or how tags_json should be formatted. This is inadequate for a complex create/update tool.

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 0% and there are 8 parameters including space, path, kind, status, tags_json, and document_id. The description adds only the vague hints that documents are markdown and live in a personal or group space, and it does not explain any parameter's role or format. For a tool with this many parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('Create or update') and the resource ('markdown document in a personal or group knowledge space'). It is specific enough to distinguish this from sibling document tools like get, search, delete, and restore, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus related tools such as memory_write, knowledge_document_get, or knowledge_document_restore. The description implies usage for creating or updating documents, but it does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or how to choose between personal and group spaces.

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