Knowledge Create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent mutation. The description adds the purpose context (entries feed AI replies) but says nothing about permissions, duplicate handling, or how created entries affect the knowledge base, so extra behavioral value is modest.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, resource, and the prompt/answer mapping are all packed in efficiently. Only slight loss for borrowing a colon-list to convey parameter meaning rather than stating the effect more directly.

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 5-parameter create tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the core purpose but omits the notable 'positive: false marks a negative example' behavior, which is the one non-obvious aspect an agent should know before calling it.

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 prompt/completion/organizationId/classificationId are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The phrase 'a question or topic and its answer' loosely glosses prompt/completion but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and the 'positive' negative-example flag goes entirely unmentioned.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('knowledge entry') and clarifies its effect ('the AI can use for replies'), then maps the entry to 'a question or topic and its answer'. This is clear enough to distinguish from knowledge_update/delete/search, but it never names a sibling explicitly to reinforce the boundary.

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 says what the tool is for but gives no when-to-use conditions, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives like knowledge_update or the knowledge_source_* tools. The only routing help (organization_list for the id) lives in the schema, not the description.

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