ragflow_add_chunk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is an additive local mutation. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not say whether the new chunk is immediately indexed/embeddable, how duplicates or ordering are handled, or what permissions the dataset requires. For a write operation, that is a meaningful gap even with annotations present.

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 zero filler. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

With five parameters, three required, and an output schema plus annotations available, the definition could stay short — but it omits the essentials an agent needs: that the target document must already exist, that chunks become retrieval candidates, and what questions/keywords do. The description does not carry enough to call this tool correctly on first try.

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 80%, so four of five parameters are documented in the schema; only important_keywords lacks a description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — notably, it never explains that questions and important_keywords improve retrieval, which is the main reason to set them. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add ... chunk to a document.' The qualifier 'hand-written' signals this creates manually authored content rather than parsed content, which helps distinguish it from ragflow_update_chunk and ragflow_delete_chunks. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, so it stays short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus ragflow_update_chunk, ragflow_ingest_documents, or ragflow_parse_documents, all of which touch chunk content. The word 'hand-written' hints at manual insertion but leaves the agent to infer prerequisites (does the document need to exist already? must it be unparsed?).

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