kb.update

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool replaces fields (destructive overwrite) and requires a subsequent index regeneration. It does not mention potential side effects, permissions needed, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. Some behavioral context is provided but significant gaps remain.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose and the second gives an important procedural instruction. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Well front-loaded with the core action.

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 straightforward update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and a key follow-up action. It lacks details about return values, error cases, or whether partial updates are allowed for omitted fields. Still, it provides enough context for basic usage. A score of 4 reflects that it is nearly complete but could address a few more behavioral aspects.

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 100%—all parameters have individual descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra value by restating that the fields are replaceable and using 'and/or' to imply partial updates. This is slightly helpful but largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Update an existing KB document by ID' and specifies that it replaces title, content, and/or source. This clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (KB document by ID), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like kb.add, kb.delete, and kb.get.

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 provides a clear post-update guideline: 'After updating, regenerate the index page with kb.index.' This guides the agent on the next step. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be used versus alternatives or when not to use it. Given that no other update tools exist in the kb.* family, the context is adequate but not fully explicit.

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