Update Knowledge Article

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

The annotations already indicate destructive (destructiveHint: true) and non-read-only (readOnlyHint: false). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: partial update semantics ('Only the fields provided will be modified; all others remain unchanged') and a warning that it modifies the instance. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence is a clearly labeled IMPORTANT warning. No redundant or filler content.

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 high schema coverage, clear annotations, and absence of output schema, the description is sufficient for a mutation tool. It explains the key behavioral nuance (partial update) and the mutating nature. It could mention what happens on success/failure, but the schema and annotations cover the main context.

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% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds important semantic context that omitted parameters remain unchanged, which gives meaning to the optional parameters as a group. This goes beyond what the schema states individually.

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 tool updates an existing knowledge article's fields with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing knowledge article'). It also distinguishes from siblings like create_kb_article (creation) and get_kb_article (reading).

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 usage for updating existing articles by saying 'existing knowledge article's fields', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., create for new articles, publish for workflow changes). The partial-update behavior is clear, but there is no direct 'when not to use' guidance.

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