knowledge_use

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds an important epistemic caveat that declarations and tool observations do not prove causation or user acceptance, but it omits the write/version-checking/idempotency behavior implied by 8 parameters and 5 required expected-version fields.

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 compact statement, front-loading the purpose and appending a caveat. There is little waste, though the compression leaves several operational terms unexplained.

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 complex write tool with 8 parameters, required optimistic-concurrency fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely incomplete. It supplies one meaningful evidentiary caveat but omits preconditions, concurrency semantics, idempotency behavior, and result expectations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely touches on 'knowledge revision' and task linkage, but does not explain knowledge_id, expected_task_id, expected_task_revision, expected_write_version, idempotency_key, operation_id, or context_handle.

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 action and resource: 'declare the knowledge revision actually adopted' for this task. This distinguishes it from read/search siblings by being a declaration/recording operation, though it never explicitly names the alternatives.

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 implies usage after adopting knowledge and says the declaration may be associated with this task's tool operations, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives versus knowledge_read or knowledge_search.

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