record_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behaviors: items are embedded/indexed and become searchable via search_knowledge, and repo keys are not worktree-resolved. It does not say whether an 'id' update replaces or merges unspecified fields (body vs tags), nor anything about auth or side effects of re-embedding, leaving meaningful behavior undisclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences: scope and keying constraint first, retrieval linkage second, update-vs-insert rule last. No filler and nothing redundant is front-loaded ahead of the essential constraint.

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 six-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the discriminating semantics (key handling, upsert, embedding/searchability). It lacks only the response shape (e.g., whether a new id is returned) and partial-vs-full update behavior, which are minor given the 100% schema coverage.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the id insert/update switch and the repo worktree caveat. The description restates those semantics rather than adding new meaning (no format, length, or tag-normalization guidance), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Store a curated knowledge item') plus the keying rule ('exact repository-path key, no worktree/family resolution'). It also clarifies the upsert nature and names the sibling that reads the data back (search_knowledge), so an agent can distinguish it from search_*/list_*/delete_* without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says to provide 'id' to update versus omit to insert, and points to search_knowledge for retrieval, giving clear context for use. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use (e.g., preferring list_knowledge or delete_knowledge paths), but the routing is unambiguous for a write tool surrounded by read tools.

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