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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the key operational trait: url/sitemap ingestion is asynchronous and requires polling chatbot_status until training completes. It omits authorization requirements, whether content is additive or replaces existing knowledge, and any rate or size limits.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then mode behavior then the follow-up action. Every sentence adds information; no repetition of the name or 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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical async-return path (poll chatbot_status until training completes) and the mode-dependent inputs. Minor gaps remain around chatbt_id semantics, title usage, and whether repeated adds accumulate.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does for content_type by tying each enum value to an ingestion path ('Text and articles are pasted in. url and sitemap are crawled in the background'), which explains why url/content/article_id are conditionally required. It says nothing about chatbot_id or title.

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 ('Add knowledge to a chatbot') and enumerates the four content modalities it accepts, which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_chatbot, ask_chatbot, and add_author_sample. An agent can identify the tool's job 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 mode selection (text/article are pasted, url/sitemap are crawled in the background) and even routes the agent to chatbot_status for polling, which is clear usage context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or naming a true alternative for bulk knowledge ingestion.

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