attach_knowledge_to_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It prominently warns 'This REPLACES all current attachments' and explains the multi-KB cross-search behavior, going well beyond a simple mutating action by disclosing destructive/replacement semantics and retrieval behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose, then the critical replacement warning, retrieval behavior, and parameter semantics. Every sentence contributes operational value with 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations, this description fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and the key behavioral gotcha (full replacement). The output schema handles return values, so no additional return-format explanation is needed.

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?

Even though the schema has zero property descriptions, the Args section adds meaningful semantic detail for both parameters. It clarifies that knowledge_base_ids must be the complete list of IDs, not just new additions, which is crucial for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Connect' and identifies the resource ('knowledge bases to an agent') and the purpose ('for RAG-powered conversations'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_knowledge_from_text or list_knowledge_bases, which handle knowledge creation and listing rather than attachment.

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 provides strong usage context: the agent will automatically search attached KBs when callers ask questions. It also includes the critical instruction that the operation REPLACES all current attachments and explains how to add without removing existing ones. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not to use the tool, though no direct sibling does exactly this.

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