kb_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses multiple behaviors beyond the schema: idempotent dedupe on title/content, automatic locator header prepending, and the three-section structure injected when directory=true. That is solid, though it omits permission or failure-mode disclosure and says nothing about what the returned page looks like, which the output schema may cover.

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?

The description is front-loaded: the core action and idempotency contract come first, then a compact Args block where each line carries a concrete rule. It is appropriately sized for a 10-parameter creation tool, with only minor redundancy in the type enumeration.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, four metadata parameters (domain, source, status, maturity) with non-obvious defaults are documented nowhere, leaving an agent unable to reason about them. That is a real completeness gap for a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully documents 6 of them—title authoring rules, markdown header behavior, parent_node_token fallback, type values, directory side effects, and the force escape hatch—but leaves domain, source, status, and maturity totally unexplained, which is a substantial gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('新建一页并写入正文'), which clearly identifies the operation as page creation plus body write, and it distinguishes the tool from kb_append and kb_replace_text by implying it acts on new pages. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it does not reach the level of a 5.

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 gives clear context: default idempotency so duplicate title or content returns the existing page, and 'force' only when you knowingly want a parallel second page. It does not explicitly route to alternatives, for example to kb_append for adding content to an existing page, so a 4 rather than a 5 is appropriate.

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