update_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it updates fields, but does not disclose that provided fields replace existing values (as noted in the schema), nor does it mention effects on unprovided fields, permissions, or return behavior. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words or filler. It effectively communicates the tool's primary action and target in a compact form.

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?

The schema provides rich parameter context, but the description omits two updatable fields (title, refs) and lacks any guidance on usage scenarios or side effects. For a tool with six parameters and no output schema, this description is adequate but not fully complete. It is less bare than a pure tautology but still leaves gaps.

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%, giving detailed explanations for all six parameters. The description itself adds minimal semantic value, only listing three of the six fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not contradict or enhance it.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing knowledge fragment', and specifies the modifiable attributes (content, tags, related links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_knowledge and delete_knowledge. Although it omits title and refs from the list, the core purpose is 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 usage for existing fragments via the word 'existing', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus add_knowledge or delete_knowledge, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The intended context is inferable but not explicitly articulated.

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