Add/update a kb doc

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

The description explains idempotent behavior (calling with same title updates in place), avoids destructive overwrites (numeric suffix for slug collisions), and reveals an automatic side effect (keyword-matching into work packets). These details add value beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), providing practical behavioral context for the agent.

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 three sentences, each adding crucial information: the primary action, the update behavior and slug handling, and the side effect. No extraneous words, well front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 write tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers input expectations (title, content, project context), behavior on repeated calls, naming conventions, and automatic integration. It does not mention the return value or how to confirm success, but the idempotentHint and real-world usage patterns reduce the need for that detail.

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 description clarifies how the 'title' parameter maps to a filename via slugification and explains the update logic for same-title calls. The 'content' parameter is clearly described as markdown body. The 'project' parameter is implied through 'board's kb/ folder' but not explicitly defined. Given schema description coverage of 67%, the description compensates with meaningful additional context beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 a markdown doc into kb/ folder) and the resource (markdown doc in board's kb/). The title 'Add/update a kb doc' reinforces the dual behavior. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like list_kb_docs, get_kb_doc, or search_kb, relying on the verb 'write' to imply it is a create/update operation.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it is for adding or updating knowledge base documents, it does not mention scenarios where one might prefer search_kb or get_kb_doc instead. The agent must infer usage from context.

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