kb_new

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it is thin. It never states that this persists/creates durable state, whether an existing note for the same os+component is overwritten or errors, or what permissions are needed. 'Fill it while working' hints at a persistent artifact but discloses nothing concrete.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. It is well-sized, though the second sentence crams two distinct ideas (fill-then-check workflow and the one-note granularity rule) into one line.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 6-parameter creation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description omits too much. Nothing is said about persistence, idempotency, or the meaning of the majority of its inputs.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'os+component milestone' indirectly hints at os_name and component, but tags, agent, status, and title are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('Create a field-note template') with a scope qualifier ('for this rebuild', 'One note per os+component milestone'). It distinguishes itself from the read-oriented kb siblings by naming kb_check as the follow-up step, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with kb_search/kb_path/kb_index.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: 'Fill it while working, then kb_check before sharing,' and constrains granularity to 'one note per os+component milestone.' This routes the agent to a sibling tool and bounds usage, though it offers no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative creation paths.

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