Save knowledge case

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation with no idempotency or destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: the knowledge base is 'local Markdown' and requires a license feature. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing cases by title), but given annotations cover the safety profile, this is acceptable. No contradiction with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object. It contains no filler or redundancy. The license requirement is included as a necessary caveat. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and effective.

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 tool with 13 parameters but 100% schema coverage, the description sufficiently explains the tool's role and relation to siblings (save vs. read/search/generate). It does not explain return values or success behavior, but since there is no output schema and the tool is a write operation, this is a minor gap. The license requirement and target resource make it contextually complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 all 13 parameters have individual descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what is in the schema, but it does contextualize that the tool is for saving resolved cases, implying use of solution, cause, lessons, etc. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Save' and clearly identifies the resource: 'local Markdown knowledge base'. It further specifies the context ('a resolved incident or finding'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hana_read_kb_case, hana_search_knowledge_base, and hana_generate_kb_index. The purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

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 states when to use the tool: to save a resolved incident or finding. It also provides a condition: 'requires active knowledge-base license feature', which is a usage prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., 'use hana_search_knowledge_base to search existing cases'), but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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