add_knowledge_from_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and it delivers: it discloses immediate chunking/indexing, the 500KB size limit, and expected retrieval behavior. However, it does not mention failure modes, uniqueness constraints, or whether creation is irreversible, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 well-structured with sections (overview, workflow, best-for, tips, args) and all content is useful. It is a bit long, but each sentence earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has a moderate complexity and an output schema exists. The description covers the full lifecycle (create, then attach to agent), gives content type guidance, size limits, and parameter details. It is complete for practical use, though it could mention error handling or uniqueness requirements for a perfect score.

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%, but the description compensates thoroughly with an Arg section explaining each parameter: name (display name with examples), text (content to index, format), and description (organizational purpose). This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema.

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 starts with 'Create a knowledge base from plain text content', a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes from the sibling add_knowledge_from_url by emphasizing 'plain text' and explains the purpose via chunking/indexing for RAG retrieval.

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 explicitly says 'Best for: FAQs, product specs, policies...' and provides practical tips for content preparation such as using headings and Q&A format. It also tells the user to use attach_knowledge_to_agent afterward, clarifying the workflow and alternative/next steps, making when-to-use clear.

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