knowledge_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool writes files and supports Obsidian-style wikilinks, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this overwrites existing files, what permissions are required, error conditions, or response format. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the core action and constraints, second provides usage context, third adds feature support. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 write tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context. However, it lacks important behavioral details about mutation effects (overwrite vs create), error handling, and response format that would be needed for complete understanding. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally address what the tool returns.

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 all three parameters. The description adds some value by clarifying the path format ('MUST start with wiki/ and end with .md') and content capabilities ('Can include YAML frontmatter and [[wikilinks]]'), but doesn't provide significant additional semantic context beyond what the schema descriptions offer.

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 specific action ('Write a file'), target resource ('to the project's wiki/ tree'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like knowledge_read and knowledge_search by focusing on writing rather than reading/searching. It provides concrete purpose beyond just the tool name.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('to compile/organize evidence from raw/ files into a structured knowledge base') and mentions path format requirements. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings like knowledge_read for reading existing files.

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