Add or change a knowledge entry

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety bar is largely met; the description still adds real value by clarifying that the operation is an upsert keyed on label and that other entries and fixed texts survive. It also discloses the response shape (entry, created, entries), the created flag being useful for distinguishing insert from update.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its upsert scope, then usage example, sibling pointer, and return shape. Only the return-shape sentence is arguably redundant given an output schema exists, but it is terse enough not to be waste.

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 an output schema, full parameter coverage, and clean annotations, the description covers what remains: upsert identity, preservation of other data, and the alternative for removal. The only gap is not naming heliyos_knowledge_update explicitly when contrasting with "fixed texts", leaving a small inference for the agent.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including case-insensitive label matching and the content replace semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description restates label+content and "replaces the current content" but adds no format, matching, or length guidance beyond the schema.

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?

"Adds a custom knowledge entry ... or replaces the content of the entry with that label" gives a specific verb and names the upsert semantics, which is the key behavior an agent must understand. It also scopes itself against the sibling delete tool by name and implicitly against heliyos_knowledge_update by noting the fixed texts are kept.

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?

"Use it for facts the fixed texts do not cover, for example 'Pricing' or 'Competitors'" gives a concrete when-to-use condition, and "Remove one with heliyos_knowledge_entries_delete" routes to the alternative. It falls short of 5 because it never says when-not to use it (e.g. that editing fixed texts is heliyos_knowledge_update's job).

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