Update knowledge document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is deterministic, does not interpret natural language, targets a specific heading, and appends a new section if the heading is missing. This covers key operational behavior, though it does not mention permissions, error handling, or reversibility—acceptable for a low-risk knowledge document update.

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 three sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core action. The key behavioral constraints (deterministic, no NL interpretation, heading behavior) are stated without unnecessary fluff.

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 simple update tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main operational aspects: target document, heading behavior, append/replace semantics, and the caller's responsibility. It lacks explicit mention of edge cases like handling invalid paths or partial failures, but these are not critical for a knowledge base update.

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 each parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the heading-targeting behavior (exact text, and appending a new section if not found) and by clarifying that the caller must decide between append and replace, which maps to the mode parameter but is not fully explicit in 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 states a specific verb (update), resource (existing knowledge document), and a precise mechanism (targeting a Markdown heading). It explicitly distinguishes itself from natural-language change requests and implies it is not for creation, which differentiates it from siblings like create_knowledge and capture_knowledge.

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 clearly implies use for updating existing documents and clarifies it is deterministic, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for creating new docs, use create_knowledge). The behavioral note about appending a new section when heading is missing provides some context, but sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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