register_kb

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It honestly discloses that registration 'Overwrites an existing kb_id' and that the KB is validated with check_kb first. However, it does not mention failure modes, return values, or permissions, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 exactly two sentences, both dense with information: the purpose/reference benefit and the overwrite/validation behavior. No filler or redundancy, and the most important verb and resource appear first.

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 a simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: naming/registering, overwriting, and validation. It lacks details on error handling if check_kb fails, but for a low-complexity registration tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that kb_id is a reference name and knowledge is the KB text, mapping to the two schema properties. It does not provide format, length, or additional constraints, but it does add meaning beyond the bare titles.

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's function: 'Register a named knowledge base under a kb_id' with the specific benefit of allowing later references instead of resending KB text. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting overwrite behavior and the relationship to check_kb, differentiating it from unregister_kb, list_kbs, and check_kb.

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 an explicit usage context: 'so later calls can reference it instead of resending the KB text' and mentions the prerequisite validation via check_kb first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use, but the purpose and precondition provide clear guidance.

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