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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true; the description goes well beyond by disclosing that articles are published immediately to a public help section unless saved as a draft, that snippets are live as soon as saved with no draft option, and that content will subsequently be used in Aide answers. That is the material side effect for a write tool. It does not discuss permissions or whether a mistaken public publish can be undone, which keeps it off a 5.

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 publish-vs-draft behavior is front-loaded and useful, but the snippet/article contrast is stated three times in slightly different words ('A snippet is internal...', 'Use a snippet for notes...', and the schema's own enum description), which is redundant for the reader. It is readable but could shed a sentence without loss.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly notes that it returns the document with its id, and there are no nested objects to explain. For a 7-parameter create tool with full schema coverage, the only real gap is the missing boundary against add_note and update_knowledge_article, which is a usage rather than a completeness defect.

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 100%, so every parameter including kind, draft, slug, sourceId and collectionId is already documented in the schema at comparable depth. The description restates the kind default and the draft behavior without adding syntax, constraints, or cross-parameter rules the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

A concrete verb plus resource ('Write knowledge ... articles') followed by an explicit two-way taxonomy (article vs snippet) that no sibling tool name alone would reveal. An agent can immediately tell this creates customer-facing or internal knowledge content, distinct from update/publish/list knowledge tools.

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 clear selection criteria ('Use a snippet for notes only Aide should read, an article for help customers should be able to read') and a content criterion ('what the website doesn't say, or what the user tells you directly'). It stops short of naming alternatives — notably add_note, which overlaps heavily with the 'snippet' concept, and update_knowledge_article for editing existing content — leaving the agent to infer that boundary.

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