user_knowledge_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that content is turned into an embedding used for semantic search and sketches the return payload ({id, title, status:"added"}), but says nothing about permissions, duplicate handling, or validation failures.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then uses an Args/Returns layout that is easy to scan. Slightly verbose with wrapped lines and repeated source-type listings (prose line plus Args line).

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 4-param write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters, the return shape, and the embedding side effect. The main gap is the lack of differentiation from user_knowledge_update and no note on error behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: all four parameters are explained, tags gets a concrete example (["framework:gold", "strategy:tactical"]), and source_type's allowed values are listed even though the schema carries no enum.

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+resource: writes user knowledge into the knowledge base, and enumerates the four supported source types. An agent can distinguish it from user_knowledge_search/update/delete by the add semantics, though the description never explicitly contrasts those siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing explains when to add a new record versus updating an existing one via user_knowledge_update, nor whether duplicates are tolerated. The only implicit hint is that source_type defaults to insight.

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