knowledge_base_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, signaling a mutation, and the description merely echoes 'Create', adding no new behavioral context. There is no disclosure about side effects, failure modes, or idempotency implications beyond what annotations imply. The description adds no value over the structured annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and scope with zero wasted words. It is highly concise and easy to parse.

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 create operation with no output schema, the description omits practical context such as how to obtain the knowledgeBaseId, whether locationId is required or defaults, and what happens if the target knowledge base doesn't exist. While some of this is in the schema, the description should provide enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly without diving into the schema alone.

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%, with clear per-parameter descriptions (e.g., 'faq answer as a string', 'knowledge base ID as string'). The description itself doesn't add any extra meaning about parameters, so it relies on the schema. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema covers everything.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a new FAQ') and adds the scope 'inside knowledge base', which distinguishes it from knowledge_base_create_knowledge_base. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'FAQ' entails (question/answer pair), so a slight ambiguity remains about the exact resource being created.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like knowledge_base_create_knowledge_base or knowledge_base_update. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing knowledgeBaseId) or any context that would help an agent decide to invoke it over similar create operations.

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