Update Knowledge Configuration

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) operation. The description adds valuable context by emphasizing atomicity and the restriction to 'approved non-secret settings', which helps the agent understand side effects and constraints.

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, tightly worded sentence that avoids redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could incorporate a bit more detail without losing clarity.

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?

With 19 parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of the configuration file lifecycle, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what happens after an update or how 'approved' settings are determined, leaving significant ambiguities.

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 the description does not name or explain any of the 19 parameters. The phrase 'approved non-secret settings' is too vague to indicate which parameters are permitted or how they relate to the function.

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 tool's action ('Atomically update') and resource ('the server's fixed configuration file'), with a scope ('approved non-secret settings'). This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like rag_build or rag_query, which serve different purposes.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools such as rag_restore_index or rag_status.

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