knowledge_flag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency (re-flagging replaces prior metadata), non-destructiveness (original content unchanged), and required permissions/schema. This exceeds expectations for a mutation tool, though it omits return values and potential side effects.

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 exceptionally concise, with the primary action in the first sentence and key behavioral facts (idempotent, non-destructive, prerequisites) following. No filler or redundant statements.

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 flagging tool, it covers purpose, idempotency, non-destructiveness, and prerequisites. However, the complete absence of parameter documentation (especially severity values and refs) leaves an agent without guidance on critical inputs, making it incomplete for robust autonomous use.

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%, and the description adds no explanation of parameters like severity, refs, or how atom_id should be specified. Only the phrase 'tags only' hints at the target. Parameter names in the schema are self-explanatory but the description does not compensate for the lack of detail.

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 explicitly states the action ('Attach'), the resource ('existing KB atom'), and the scope ('tags only'), making it distinct from sibling tools like knowledge_retract or kb_promote. The phrase 'visible integrity flag' further clarifies the intent.

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?

It provides clear context by stating prerequisites (knowledge_curate permission, confirmed schema with tags column) and an exclusion ('tags only'). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so guidance is implicit rather than comparative.

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