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

Annotations declare this is a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: the KB starts empty, and it notes the 'May return `needs_confirmation`' flow, which signals a possible approval step. It does not detail permissions or the confirmation payload, but the added disclosure is valuable.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by recipe semantics, then the follow-up workflow. Three sentences, each carrying distinct, useful information with no filler.

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 6-param write tool with 83% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it creates, how to select a recipe, the next steps, and the confirmation possibility. Minor gaps remain (workspace defaulting, error behavior), but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 83%, so most parameters are self-documented and the schema covers visibility in depth. The description adds genuine meaning for the recipe values ('docs'/'tabular'/'graph'), which the schema only labels as 'Default docs'. This elevates it above the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Creates an empty knowledge base') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling workbench_kb_add_documents by describing the create-then-add workflow. The recipe enumeration further clarifies the tool's scope and variants.

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?

Gives a clear lifecycle: create, then add content with workbench_kb_add_documents, then attach to an agent in the editor. The recipe descriptions also guide selection ('docs' for runtime-searched reference material, 'tabular' for SQL, 'graph' for entity extraction). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is strong.

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