update_knowledge_agent

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

The annotations already declare this is not read-only and is destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail: omitted settings retain their values, and system_prompt replaces the existing prompt. It does not fully explain the destructive implications or permission requirements beyond ownership, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 key update semantics are front-loaded, followed by a compact Args list. Every line adds useful parameter meaning or update behavior, with no redundant filler.

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 description covers the partial-update behavior, ownership requirement, and each input parameter, while output details are covered by the existing output schema and safety signals by annotations. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could say more about destructive consequences or visibility separation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It documents all six parameters, including enum-like mode values and that model applies to generative answers; model's allowed values are left to the schema, but overall the description compensates well for the missing schema 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Change the settings of a Knowledge Agent you own.' It is distinguishable from create/list tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling set_knowledge_agent_visibility or explain that visibility is handled elsewhere.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Change the settings' and the ownership prerequisite, so an agent can infer this is for updating an existing agent the caller owns. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusions versus create_knowledge_agent or set_knowledge_agent_visibility.

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