Teach the assistant an answer

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses upsert behavior: repeating the same question replaces the earlier answer instead of creating duplicates. This is valuable given destructiveHint=true, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the operation, the rationale, and the critical replacement behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with a full schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, content style, and the only non-obvious behavioral rule (replacement). Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the existing schema descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific action ('Add a question-and-answer pair'), a specific resource (the company's knowledge base), and a content constraint ('in the company's own words'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_company_knowledge or delete_knowledge_document.

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 states the condition for use ('closes a visitor knowledge gap') and clarifies update semantics. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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