kb_manage

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned collection_id and the fact that creation is never implicit. It says nothing about duplicate-name behavior, uniqueness constraints, or required permissions — meaningful for a create operation with idempotentHint=false.

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 compact sentences with the core action and return value front-loaded, and the constraint sentence placed second as supporting context. No 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 create tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what it does and what it returns. It is incomplete on parameter expectations and on failure modes (duplicate name, invalid project_id), which an agent would need before calling it confidently.

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 both parameters rest entirely on the description, which does little: 'in a project' only loosely explains project_id and 'name' is never addressed at all. There is no guidance on naming rules, length, or whether an existing name causes an error.

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 specific verb and resource ('Create a Knowledge Base (collection) in a project') and adds the return value ('return its collection_id'). The second sentence separates it from the sibling write tools (kb_write_text, kb_add_file, etc.) by noting they consume an existing collection_id rather than creating one.

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?

Makes the usage context explicit: this is the only way a Knowledge Base comes into existence, and it must precede any write tool that needs a collection_id. It stops short of naming a specific sibling to call next, but the implied ordering is unmistakable.

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