Update knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that the update is data-only, verifies via SHA-256 hash and schema before activation, requires explicit consent, and never updates the MCP engine itself. This gives an agent a clear safety and side-effect profile.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying essential information: action, verification/safety, and critical prerequisite. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains what happens, how safety is ensured, the required consent flag, and what the operation does not affect.

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?

The schema already describes the consent parameter completely and marks it required, so the description adds little new parameter-level meaning. It reinforces the consent gate but does not introduce additional format, values, or behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Downloads and applies the newer remote knowledge bundle.' It also clarifies scope with 'data only' and 'Never updates the MCP engine itself,' which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like get_knowledge_status or search_knowledge.

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 the tool is used to apply the latest remote knowledge bundle and requires consent, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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