Create solution article

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value by stating the default outcome is a draft (not live content), but omits what happens on duplicate titles, whether folder_id must reference an existing solution folder, and any content-format requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the most decision-relevant fact (draft by default) comes first. It is efficient but verges on under-specified for an 8-parameter creation tool.

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 create tool with 8 parameters, 3 required, and dependencies such as an existing folder_id, one sentence leaves significant gaps. The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, but the description still doesn't cover required-field expectations or the distinction between draft and published flows.

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 75% with status, description, folder_id and review_date already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the status semantics ('draft unless status is 2') and adds nothing about article_type, tags, keywords, or the HTML body requirement.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (create a knowledge-base article) and clarifies the important nuance that the result is a draft unless status is 2. It is distinguishable from create_solution_folder/create_solution_category by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with publish_solution_article.

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 parenthetical implies the normal path is draft creation and that publishing is opt-in via status=2, which is implicit usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of using publish_solution_article for existing drafts, and no prerequisite noted for folder_id.

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