kb_manage

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

The description discloses a non-obvious behavior: KBs are not auto-created on write. It also implies the tool returns an id for subsequent writes. Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the burden and does so helpfully.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core function. Every word earns its place and there is 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?

Covers the basic purpose and workflow, but lacks parameter semantics (especially config), return value details, and differentiation from sibling tools like kb_create_direct_upload. Adequate for a simple create tool but with clear 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 adds context for project_id ('in a project') but leaves 'config' completely unexplained and doesn't detail 'name'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names.

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 states the tool creates a Knowledge Base in a project, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like kb_delete and kb_list by focusing on creation.

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 provides clear workflow context: 'KBs are not auto-created on write — create one explicitly, then write documents into it by its id.' This implies when to use it (before writing) and the need to use the returned id later. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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