Edit a knowledge source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one specific behavior: trigger condition with null removes it. However, it does not state whether edits are additive or replace the entire file, whether permissions are required, or what the operation does to unspecified fields. This is partial transparency.

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 lists the modifiable fields without excessive padding. It is front-loaded with the operation and resource. The list is somewhat run-on, but it remains concise and readable.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too short. It omits the purpose of the required 'knowledge' parameter, does not clarify the effect of omitting optional fields, and provides no information about return values or side effects. An agent would have to infer these details from the schema, which is largely undescribed.

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 only 13% (only workspace has a description in the schema), so the description must compensate. It lists the fields but does not map them to the actual parameter names (e.g., 'name' vs the 'rename' parameter) and does not explain the required 'knowledge' parameter's purpose. It adds some meaning for triggerCondition (null removes it) but leaves most parameters ambiguous.

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 operation as 'Change a knowledge source file' and lists the specific fields (name, description, site URL, includeSubPages, trigger condition, additional search terms). This distinguishes it from the sibling cs_add_knowledge_source, which focuses on creation rather than modification.

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?

No explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like cs_add_knowledge_source. The verb 'Change' implies it is for editing existing sources, but no alternative is named or exclusionary condition stated. Usage is thus only implied rather than explicitly guided.

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