connect_knowledge_base

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond those flags: the operation persists a local configuration, indexes documents, makes the KB 'available immediately', and 'survives restarts'. Persistence/availability traits are genuinely useful and not in the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the triggering condition, then the call constraint, then the outcome. No filler. Slightly telegraphic ('identical patterns') but every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description needn't restate safety. It adequately covers the workflow, the persistence guarantee, and the preview-scope constraint. The main residual gap is the undocumented parameter set, which is a schema issue more than a description incompleteness.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It adds meaning to preview_id and the include/exclude patterns ('Pass the preview_id and identical patterns'), but kb_id, root, and confirmed are left entirely to inference. With 4 of 6 parameters undocumented in both schema and description, compensation is only partial.

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 specific verbs and resource: 'save a local configuration and index the documents' for a knowledge base. It clearly establishes this as the commit/connect step following a preview, which distinguishes it from preview_knowledge_base, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('After the user confirms the previewed scope') and an exclusionary rule ('changed scope requires a fresh preview and confirmation'). This tells the agent when to call it and when to redirect to a new preview, though it doesn't name the sibling tool.

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