va_create_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does explicitly call out that this is a WRITE OPERATION which mutates and adds bot-answerable content — useful transparency. However, it doesn't disclose effects like whether existing duplicates are created, indexing time, or whether changes require a sync to take effect, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 two short sentences with zero wasted words. The WRITE OPERATION emphasis is front-loaded and the purpose-relevant context ('adds content the bot can answer from') is concise and informative. Appropriate length for a create tool.

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?

This is a write/create tool with no annotations and no output schema, so it carries a heavy disclosure burden. With 2 required params (one a loosely-typed object), the description should explain the creation flow, confirmation of success, and any sync implications. With no annotations or output schema, two sentences fall notably short of what an agent needs to invoke it reliably.

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 50% — kbId has no description while article has a partial one. The description doesn't individually explain parameters; however it notes the article is an 'Article payload matching the Zoom KM API schema (title, content, etc)', which gives some structure. kbId's semantics remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a partial gap given the moderate coverage rate.

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+resource ('Create a new knowledge base article') which clearly distinguishes the write intent from sibling results tools (va_get_articles, va_get_article, va_update_article). The WRITE OPERATION emphasis and 'adds content the bot can answer from' adds purpose context. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly contrast with va_update_article or note relationship to va_sync_knowledge_base.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't clarify when to create vs update (va_update_article), whether synchronization is required afterward, or any prerequisites like syncing with va_sync_knowledge_base. The WRITE OPERATION flag implies creation use-case but offers no when/when-not guidance.

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