add_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It states 'Create a new knowledge fragment file' which implies writing to disk, but omits critical details: whether existing files are overwritten, path validation, directory creation, permission requirements, or failure modes. 'Proper frontmatter' is vague and does not explain how inputs map to frontmatter or what validation occurs.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Create a new'), and every word contributes meaningful information. No redundant phrasing or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite a rich schema, the description lacks essential operational context. There is no output schema, annotations are absent, and the description fails to explain success/failure behavior, path constraints, prerequisites, or how the tool integrates with the knowledge base system. The 'frontmatter' mention hints at internal structure but is insufficient for a 7-parameter creation tool.

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 100% for all 7 parameters, so the schema already provides detailed parameter meanings. The description adds only the concept of 'frontmatter' as context but does not clarify how specific parameters map to frontmatter fields or their relationships. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds minimal semantic value 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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'knowledge fragment file', making the action unambiguous. The word 'new' distinguishes this from update_knowledge and delete_knowledge, and 'frontmatter' adds context about the file structure. This is a specific, non-tautological statement that fully conveys the tool's purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool (when creating a new knowledge fragment) and the 'new' distinguishes it from update/delete operations. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name them, falling short of the highest standard. The context from sibling names clarifies the use case but the description itself lacks direct comparison.

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