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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), the description discloses the 16MB size limit, that the asset becomes publicly reachable at /api/kb/audio/[id], that no AI-generated description exists so one must be supplied, and that target_user_id is admin-only with the authenticated account as default. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before writing.

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?

A single dense paragraph with the core action front-loaded, followed by limit, access path, cadence restriction, and ownership default in that order. Every sentence carries information, though the em-dash parenthetical and warning emoji add slight length without new facts.

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 6 fully documented params and no output schema, the description covers source, limits, visibility, permissions, and a key downstream restriction. What remains unstated — supported audio formats/MIME types and how indexing surfaces in search_knowledge_base — is minor but non-trivial for a create-and-index tool.

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 100% and the schema already documents the base64-over-URL priority, the mandatory description, and the admin-only target_user_id, so the description largely restates it. Baseline 3 is appropriate — no meaningful syntax or format guidance is added beyond the schema.

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 pair and resource — 'Cria e indexa um ÁUDIO na base de conhecimento' — and states the two accepted sources (public URL or base64). The audio modality is unique among the kb siblings (image/video/document), so the agent can distinguish it without reading the schema, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use context (public http/https URL vs base64 when nothing is hosted) and a hard when-not: audio cannot be used in prospecting cadences because Meta templates only accept image/video/document/text. It stops short of routing the agent to create_kb_image/create_kb_video for those cases, so it is clear but not fully disambiguating.

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