knowledge_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Write' implies a mutation operation but doesn't clarify permissions, whether it overwrites existing files, error handling, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a write operation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and expected outcomes, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation.

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%, meaning none of the three parameters (workspace, path, content) are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'workspace' and 'path' implicitly but adds no details on their formats, constraints, or meanings, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 action ('Write') and the target resource ('compiled article into the workspace knowledge directory'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like knowledge_ingest_text or knowledge_archive, which might also involve writing content, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like knowledge_ingest_text and knowledge_archive available, there's no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using knowledge_write, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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