update_knowledge_article

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the context that WRITE_ENABLED must be true, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions 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 a single sentence that conveys the core action and a critical requirement without extraneous words. It is efficient, though slightly more detail could be beneficial.

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 tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and a prerequisite. However, it does not mention return values, error scenarios, or that the tool is idempotent (as indicated by annotations), leaving some gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema; it only adds general context about a required configuration.

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 'knowledge article', making the purpose unambiguous. It also includes a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) which distinguishes it from read-only tools like get_knowledge_article.

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 mentions a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true), which provides context for when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the resource-specific name naturally guides selection.

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