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

The description discloses several non-obvious behaviors beyond annotations: asynchronous ingestion pipeline (parse → structure-aware chunk → embed with the KB’s bound key), hash-based deduplication with the `deduped` response flag, and the silent failure mode when no embedding key is bound. The readOnlyHint=false annotation agrees with the mutating nature of the tool, so there is no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then efficiently adds async behavior, deduplication, embedding-key requirement, and file exclusion. Each sentence carries distinct information and no sentence feels redundant or padded.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the full operational context: how ingestion works, how duplicates are handled, what could cause failure, and when to use a different upload path. The agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret likely outcomes.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (text, kb_id, title) sufficiently. The description adds contextual preconditions like KB ownership and bound embedding key, but it does not materially extend parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description opens with a specific action — 'Add a text document to a knowledge base you own by pasting its content' — which names the verb, resource, and input method. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like findagent_delete_kb_document and findagent_list_kb_documents by restricting scope to adding text content only.

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?

The description states exactly when to use the tool: for pasted text documents in a KB you own. It gives a concrete exclusion — for files (PDF/markdown/docx), use the web Knowledge Base uploader — and notes the prerequisite that the KB must have an embedding key bound. This is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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