knowledge_draft_create

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

Discloses key behaviors: automatic dedup merging sourceFlowIds, safe to call repeatedly, constraints on title length, body format, rationale purpose. No annotations exist, so description fully covers behavioral traits.

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?

Highly efficient: first sentence states purpose, followed by context, then bullet-pointed rules. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral nuances. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Adds meaning beyond input schema: explains draftType enum values, title rules ('deklarativ, max 60 chars, no prefix'), body format (2-6 paragraphs), rationale purpose, and sourceFlowIds as grouping. Schema coverage is 100%, but description enriches each parameter.

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 'Create a new knowledge draft' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like knowledge_draft_list, knowledge_draft_accept, etc., by explaining the creation context and dedup behavior.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use: after knowledge_backfill_request or standalone when identifying a flow worth documenting. Includes dedup details and rules, though no explicit 'when not to use' is needed given clarity.

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