add_knowledge

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, but the description adds the genuinely useful behavior: near-duplicates are returned rather than created unless `force` is set. It also flags that `author` is required. Return format and any auth/rate constraints are left unstated, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Four tight sentences with zero filler; the purpose, scope constraint, and duplicate-handling caveat are all front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct information an agent needs before calling.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision points: what belongs here, the required author, and duplicate semantics. It omits what a successful call returns and how the scoping parameters (client_slug, cross_client_safe) interact, though the schema covers those fields.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented (notably `force`, whose conditional use is fully explained by the schema). The description's mentions of `author` and `force` largely restate structured data, adding little syntax or format meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Add a knowledge entry') and immediately scopes the content to cross-agent material (gotchas, safety/compliance rules, verified patterns, vendor behaviour). The scope statement cleanly separates it from siblings like update_knowledge and delete_knowledge, which an agent can tell apart without opening schemas.

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 explicit inclusion criteria ('Cross-agent only...') and an explicit exclusion plus redirect ('Host-local lessons belong in your own docs, not here'). It stops short of naming alternative tools (e.g. update_knowledge for edits), so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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