update_knowledge_base_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the partial update behavior (omitted fields unchanged), but lacks info on error handling, permissions, idempotency, or side effects. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence gives the primary purpose, the second adds critical usage behavior. Every sentence is necessary and well-placed.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the partial update behavior, but could mention that note_id is required (though in schema). Lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., need UUID from list/get). Still relatively complete for a simple update tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by clarifying that only provided fields are updated, which changes how parameters are used (no need to send all fields). This semantic addition justifies above baseline.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing Knowledge Base article', distinguishing it from create, delete, and get/list tools. It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings.

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 implies when to use: to modify an article without recreating it, but does not explicitly contrast with create or delete. The partial update behavior is a useful guideline, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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