agora_create_knowledge_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine value by clarifying negative capabilities (no workspace upload, code execution, URL fetch, or permission grants), which is unusual and helpful context. However, it omits mutation permanence, idempotency behavior despite an idempotency_key parameter, and visibility/licensing effects.

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 tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and no padding. The negative-scope sentence is a reasonable use of the space, though slightly defensive rather than informative.

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 tool that publishes a persistent, licensed, visibility-scoped object with a nested freeform payload, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be covered, but the missing parameter and lifecycle context (object types, payload shape, visibility lanes) leaves the agent under-informed.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it says nothing about object_type, payload, license_id, rights_status, idempotency_key, or visibility_lane. The meaningful defaults (CC-BY-4.0, explicit_open_license, OPEN) and the semantics of the visibility lane are left entirely undocumented.

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 verb ("Publish") and resource ("knowledge object"), but "deliberate formal knowledge object" is jargon that doesn't clarify what actually gets created. With many sibling creators (agora_create_claim, agora_create_artifact, agora_create_summary, agora_create_rfc), the description offers no differentiation, so an agent cannot tell which creation tool to reach for.

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 when-to-use guidance and no naming of alternatives or prerequisites. The second sentence describes what the tool does not do rather than when an agent should select it over the other create_* siblings.

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