Create a knowledge draft

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds the valuable behavioral detail that the draft is local and cannot bypass human review, clarifying it will not directly publish or update knowledge articles.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core purpose and a critical constraint efficiently.

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 having a complex nested request with nine properties, the description offers no context about the draft lifecycle, how to fill the parameters, or what happens after creation. The 'local' and 'human review' hints are useful, but the description is far too minimal for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, but the description provides no information about the request object's fields such as ticket_id, solution_steps, recommended_action, or idempotency_key. The agent must rely solely on field names and constraints, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 tool creates a local create/update draft, distinguishing it from read-only siblings like knowledge_search and knowledge_get_article. The key constraint 'cannot bypass human review' makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'cannot bypass human review' implies the tool is for drafts that require approval, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage context is only implied, not elaborated.

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