kb_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states the tool updates fields but does not disclose whether partial updates preserve other fields, required permissions, side effects (e.g., re-embedding), or error handling. The presence of an output schema mitigates return value documentation but not behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the action, resource, and scope of modification. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 complexity (7 parameters, mutation action) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not address when to use the tool, prerequisites, or behavioral details like partial updates or side effects. The output schema helps with return values but does not compensate for missing contextual guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning to each parameter beyond the property name. It merely lists the same field names (content, title, topic, tags, verified state, trust_score) without explaining formats, constraints, or semantics (e.g., what 'verified state' means). This provides minimal added value.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'existing KB entry', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like kb_add (create) and kb_delete (delete). It also lists the updatable fields, making the tool's functionality unambiguous.

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 use when modifying a KB entry but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use kb_add instead) or any prerequisites. The implied context is clear but lacks exclusions or rationale.

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