kb2_document_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and covers key behavioral traits: the write nature, two-phase confirmation, optimistic concurrency via updatedAt check, prohibition on agent self-confirmation, forced overwrite=false, and required scope/permissions. This is rich, actionable context beyond the schema.

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 tight paragraph where each sentence adds value: the WRITE prefix, the update scope, the preview/confirm workflow, concurrency handling, and permissions. No redundancy or fluff, despite covering a complex interaction.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what it does, how to use it correctly, what security/permissions are required, and how stale updates are prevented. The sibling context (update vs create/delete) is clear.

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 covers all parameters at 100%, but the description adds crucial semantics for confirm and expected_updated_at: the preview workflow, that confirm=true requires the same expected_updated_at, and that MCP re-checks updatedAt. This goes beyond the schema's static descriptions.

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 opens with 'WRITE: обновить заголовок и/или Markdown документа Базы знаний 2.0', which clearly states the action (update) and resource (KB 2.0 document title/Markdown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create and delete.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: first call with confirm=false, save expected_updated_at, then after user confirmation call with confirm=true. It also instructs the agent not to self-confirm. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool beyond the confirmation flow.

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