create_kb_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema: answer accepts HTML, and is_faq=True publishes into the public FAQ (a visibility side effect). However, it omits permissions/auth requirements, whether creation is reversible, and validation behavior for category_id.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one line, then a tight bullet list per parameter with zero filler. Well sized for a four-parameter mutation tool, though the bullets simply mirror the schema keys.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and all parameters but says nothing about the returned article identifier, required permissions, or error conditions. Adequate but leaves notable gaps for a write operation.

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 and it largely does, defining all four parameters: name as the article title, answer as content/solution with HTML accepted, category_id as an optional KB category ID, and is_faq as public-FAQ publishing. It lacks format details for category_id (how to discover valid IDs) but adds real meaning over the bare 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Crée un nouvel article dans la base de connaissances.' An agent can tell this creates a KB article, distinguishing it from create_ticket/create_supplier, though it never explicitly contrasts with siblings like update_kb_article or add_solution.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as add_solution or update_kb_article. The agent must infer from the name alone when this tool is the right choice.

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