kb2_document_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the write nature, the two-phase confirmation requirement to prevent accidental creation, and the webhook permission dependency. This is substantive behavioral context beyond a simple 'creates a document', though it does not describe the exact response or error behavior.

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 only two sentences long, with the critical 'WRITE' keyword front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: what it does, the confirm=false→preview→confirm=true flow, and the permission caveat. There is no verbose or redundant content.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential operational context: the confirmation protocol and permission requirements. It does not detail the shape or contents of the preview response or error conditions, but the rich schema compensates for parameter-level gaps. This is a solid, usable description.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning to the confirm and expected_preview_key parameters by explaining their workflow relationship (first call returns preview, second call requires matching preview_key). This exceeds baseline.

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 opens with 'WRITE' and explicitly states the action: 'создать документ Базы знаний 2.0' (create a Knowledge Base 2.0 document) via note.document.add. This clearly identifies a create operation on a specific resource and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like kb2_document_update or kb2_document_delete.

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 gives explicit usage workflow: call with confirm=false first and show the preview to the user, then pass confirm=true only after explicit user confirmation. It also states the permission prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., when to use update instead of create), so it stops short of a 5.

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