Update KB Documents Metadata

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation, so the bar is lowered. The description adds no behavioral caveats beyond what annotations and schema convey, such as the effect of omitting filters or whether metadata_updates merges or replaces existing fields. It neither contradicts the annotations nor adds meaningful 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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word carries necessary information, with no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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?

While the schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, the description omits practical details such as what happens when no filter is provided, whether metadata updates are merged or overwritten, and what the tool returns. No output schema exists, so the description carries more responsibility for explaining behavior, leaving a noticeable gap.

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 the schema already documents rag_id, filters, extra_fields, and metadata_updates. The description essentially restates the role of filters and metadata updates without adding extra meaning or usage nuance beyond the schema.

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 (metadata on documents in a knowledge base), and the selection scope (matching a filter). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_kb_delete_docs_by_filter and lyzr_kb_update, 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 provides a clear context for when to use the tool: when metadata on filtered knowledge base documents needs to be updated. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing is specific enough to infer the intended use case.

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