update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful traits: append-only body semantics, deliberate absence of full-body replacement, and optimistic concurrency ('rejects stale changes'). It stops short of permissions, reversibility, or error/response behavior, but the concurrency and no-replace disclosures are genuinely useful beyond the schema.

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 sentences, no filler, with the allowable operations front-loaded before the constraints. The first sentence is a dense run-on list, but given 21 parameters it stays compact and every clause carries information.

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 21-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers motivation and concurrency but is thin on how the many optional fields interact (e.g. whether attributes replaces or merges, what rating/review do). It is adequate to start a call but not complete enough to invoke the richer fields confidently.

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 0% across 21 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only partially does — it names append, title, sensitivity, bookmark_kind, and gestures at experience metadata and record_experience. Numeric fields (rating, review, aliases, servings, cook_minutes, prep_minutes), source_* fields, attributes, and occurred_* fields are never explained, leaving a large share of parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

Enumerates the concrete operations (append content, change title/sensitivity/bookmark kind/experience metadata, record a legacy place/product experience), which is much more specific than the bare name 'update'. The main weakness is that it never names the resource being updated (it is only inferable from the 'kn_' id pattern), so an agent must guess it mutates a knowledge entry.

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?

States a real precondition ('Requires the revision from the latest read') and an exclusion ('Full-body replacement is intentionally unavailable'), which tells the agent a get_entry read must precede this call. However, it never contrasts itself with obvious siblings like capture, save_recipe, or save_bookmark, so when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives is left to inference.

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