kb_add_file

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the file's text is 'extracted, chunked, and embedded' and that the tool returns a status to poll, implying asynchronous processing. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is a single compact paragraph of about 50 words, front-loaded with the step context. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or fluff.

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 and minimal annotations, the description covers the workflow, return shape, and polling requirement well. However, with 7 parameters, some parameter semantics and error/edge-case details are missing, leaving minor gaps.

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 must compensate. It explains the role of signed_id in the upload workflow but does not clarify the other parameters (config, metadata, document_type). Some compensation exists, but several parameters remain 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?

The description clearly identifies this as 'Step 2 of a two-step file upload' with a specific action: create a KB document from the uploaded file's signed_id. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kb_create_direct_upload (step 1) and kb_get_status (polling) by naming them directly.

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?

The description explicitly provides usage context by referencing the prerequisite (PUT to upload_url from kb_create_direct_upload) and the follow-up (poll kb_get_status). While it does not explicitly mention alternatives like kb_write_text or kb_add_urls, the step-based framing makes the intended use clear.

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