rx_create_article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/mutation nature is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the article is created on behalf of the user, visibility follows area rights, and it mutates data in RX. It does not describe failure modes or what happens on duplicate creation, keeping it from a 5.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph that front-loads purpose and then prerequisites in a logical order, with no filler sentences. It is slightly packed with several distinct requirements, but every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, required source of area_id, duplicate-check workflow, permission/visibility model, and a user-confirmation step. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates that title/text are markdown and that area_id comes from rx_kb_areas, but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema already documents for these three parameters.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (create a knowledge-base article) and names the required inputs (title and markdown text) plus the scoping entity (область/area). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like rx_update_article, rx_kb_search and rx_kb_areas.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: get the area Id from rx_kb_areas and verify via rx_kb_search that the article does not already exist before creating. It also states a pre-call UX requirement (show the user the title and start of the text), which is concrete when-to-use/when-to-check guidance.

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