smart_knowledge_update

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

Description labels the tool as [mutation] and requires confirmation, communicating safety-critical behavior. It also describes the preview-before-execution pattern. However, it does not detail side effects like irreversibility or what happens after update, though the requirement for confirmation mitigates risk.

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?

Single paragraph with clear front-loading of purpose, examples, and workflow. Could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains concise and easy to parse.

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 complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers usage and workflow. However, it lacks details on the preview response format and error handling, which would be helpful for full autonomous usage.

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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds workflow context (preview then confirm, use of selected_ids) beyond the schema, guiding effective invocation. However, it only moderately enhances understanding of each parameter 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?

Description clearly states verb 'actualización' (update) and resource 'conocimiento' (knowledge), with examples of user instructions that trigger it. Distinguishes from sibling tools like `edit_knowledge_snippet` by emphasizing intelligent search and batch update based on contradictions.

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?

Explicitly provides usage triggers (e.g., 'now we accept PayPal') and a two-phase workflow: call without confirm for preview, then with confirm=true and selected_ids to execute. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool.

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