knowledge_base_train_discovered_urls

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the operation is asynchronous, whether it returns a status, or how it relates to the `operationId` parameter. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to convey any valuable behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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, compact sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core action efficiently and is front-loaded with the primary verb. However, it is too sparse to cover important context, so it earns a 4 for brevity but not a 5 because the conciseness sacrifices completeness.

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?

The description is drastically underspecified for a tool with four parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the relationship between urlIds and operationId, mention that operationId likely comes from a discovery operation, indicate any asynchronous behavior, or state what the tool returns. An agent would struggle to use it correctly without diving into the schema or external documentation.

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%, meaning every parameter (urlIds, locationId, operationId, knowledgeBaseId) already has a description in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific information, so it relies entirely on the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 when schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('train') and the resource ('discovered website pages') and destination ('knowledge base'), which distinguishes it from discovery or deletion tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling `knowledge_base_discover_website` beyond the verb, and it lacks an explicit alternative name, so it is clear but not maximally distinct.

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 provides no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'discovered website pages' implies it should be used after discovery, but it does not state the prerequisite (e.g., 'use after knowledge_base_discover_website') or any exclusions. An agent would have to infer the context from the name and sibling tools.

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