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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds value beyond them by clarifying that insertion is additive ('never replaces an existing one') and that the entry is immediately live for the chatbot, i.e. no indexing lag. It does not mention auth requirements or limits, but for this simple mutation the addition is meaningful.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the behavioral caveat immediately after. Nothing repeats the title or the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the essential return-relevant behavior (usable immediately). With fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the definition is nearly complete; only the sibling routing for URL/image sources is left implicit.

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 title, content, and website_id are already documented including the default-primary-website behavior. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the full load.

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 and resource with scope ('a titled block of text to one website's knowledge base'), which cleanly separates it from add_knowledge_url and add_image among the add_* siblings. An agent can identify the right tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the effect that determines when this is appropriate ('the chatbot can use it in answers as soon as this returns') and that it is purely additive. It does not name add_knowledge_url as the alternative for URL sources, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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