knowledge_flag

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

The description discloses idempotency, the side effect of replacing previous flag metadata, and the guarantee that 'Original content is unchanged'. This is useful behavioral context beyond the sparse readOnly/destructive hints and genuinely helps an agent understand the tool's impact.

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 sentences provide the action, idempotency, side effects, and constraints with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded and the structure is clean and 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?

The tool's core behavior and prerequisites are documented, but with no output schema and no return-value description, the agent is left without success/failure semantics or a clear sense of what to expect after invocation. This is a visible gap for a mutating tool with no output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain app_id, reason, severity, or refs. It only hints at the atom/tag context. An agent cannot infer the valid semantics or relationship between required parameters and their effects.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a visible integrity flag to an existing KB atom (tags only)'. It clearly identifies the operation and scope, and the tag-only qualifier helps distinguish it from other flag-related tools in the sibling list.

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?

It gives concrete usage prerequisites: 'Requires knowledge_curate and a confirmed schema with a mapped tags column'. This tells an agent when it is safe to call the tool, though it never explicitly names an alternative or states when not to use it.

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