create_knowledge_store

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description usefully reinforces the mutating nature and, more importantly, surfaces the non-obvious default-true dryRun behavior, which materially changes what a call actually does. It does not cover auth/permission requirements or response behavior.

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 short sentences with zero filler: purpose first, domain context second, the mutating/dryRun caveat last. The most decision-relevant fact (that it mutates and requires dryRun=false) is not buried.

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 creation tool with full schema descriptions and annotations but no output schema, the description covers purpose, the destructive-vs-dry-run distinction, and the concept of a knowledge store. It omits what a successful call returns (store ID) and the LLM-provider prerequisite, though the latter appears in the schema.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter already carries a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the dryRun semantics already documented on that property, adding no new parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Creates') with a precise resource ('Cognigy.AI knowledge store') and adds domain context about what a store contains (sources/documents searchable by AI Agents). The verb alone separates it from the sibling list_/get_/update_/delete_knowledge_store tools, though it never names those siblings 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?

The critical operational cue 'MUTATING: Set dryRun=false to create' is given, which prevents a silent no-op given the default dryRun=true. However, there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a source/connector afterwards) and no stated prerequisites in the description itself.

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