create_knowledge_article

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

The description adds the 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true' requirement, which is not present in annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as return values, error conditions, or side effects. Annotations already cover readOnly and destructive hints, so the additional context is limited but nonzero.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action and a key prerequisite efficiently, making every word valuable.

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?

The description is too sparse for a create operation. It does not mention what the response contains (e.g., sys_id of the created article) or any potential side effects. Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior, which it fails to do. The schema covers parameters, but the overall context remains incomplete.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, yielding the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Create a new knowledge article') and the resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_knowledge_article or publish_knowledge_article, but the verb 'create' is unambiguous and distinct enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parenthetical 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true' is a precondition, not a usage scenario, and there is no mention of using update for existing articles or publish for lifecycle transitions.

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