Update Knowledge Base Config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as merge semantics or prerequisites. It is not contradictory, but it doesn't add meaningful transparency beyond the structured fields.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and immediately explains how to specify changes. Every word is purposeful; there is no redundancy or filler. This is an exemplar of concise, well-structured tool documentation.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no enums), the description is mostly sufficient. It tells the user what to do and how to supply changes. However, it could mention implications of the update (e.g., whether it merges or replaces config) or the return value, but the schema and annotations fill in key details. The description is adequate but not exhaustive, hence a 4.

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%: both parameters (config_id and extra_fields) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description merely restates that fields are provided via extra_fields, which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description doesn't compensate or enhance the parameter understanding.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('a knowledge base config'), and the identifier type ('by id'). It distinguishes this from related siblings like lyzr_kb_create, lyzr_kb_get, and lyzr_kb_delete by focusing on the config update operation. The title reinforces the specific resource, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context: use this when you have a knowledge base config id and want to change fields via extra_fields. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., lyzr_kb_update_docs_metadata for document metadata updates). The guidance is present but implicit, relying on the tool name and sibling list for differentiation.

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