aiworkhub_manager_kb_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'MANAGER WRITE' signals mutation, and supersede/archive imply replacement or removal, but the description omits permissions, idempotency semantics, provenance requirements, reversibility, and side effects on existing KB entries.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the action list is compact. The colon-list structure is slightly terse and label-like, but it does not waste words.

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 10-parameter write tool with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the one-sentence description is far too thin. Output schema may cover return values, but input semantics, action distinctions, and side effects are not adequately addressed.

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 10 parameters, and the description only names the action enum values, which are already in the schema. It fails to explain key, idempotency_key, provenance, replacement_key, body, tags, title, category, or source_refs.

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 ('WRITE') and resource ('canonical KB data'), and enumerates the four write actions (upsert, ingest, supersede, archive). It implicitly contrasts with read-oriented siblings such as aiworkhub_manager_kb_get and aiworkhub_manager_kb_search, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 only repeats the action enum values already present in the schema. It gives no guidance on when to choose upsert vs ingest vs supersede vs archive, no prerequisites such as idempotency_key or provenance requirements, and no exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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