ghl_knowledge_base_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Create...' which implies a write operation, but it does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what resources are affected. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose clearly. However, it is slightly under-specified in terms of behavioral context, but that is covered by other dimensions. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what will be returned, whether the operation is idempotent, or any prerequisites (e.g., that the location must exist). minimal context beyond the bare action.

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 schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (name and locationId), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The locationId description mentions a fallback to GHL_LOCATION_ID, but this is in the schema, not the tool description.

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) and the target resource (a knowledge base), with an added purpose ('for AI training'). It distinguishes from list and training tools by the 'create' verb, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like train_urls or discover_website, which could also be related to knowledge base setup.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a sibling tool like ghl_knowledge_base_train_urls would be more appropriate. The description merely implies usage for creating a knowledge base.

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