Train KB Documents

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It does not mention whether training appends/overwrites, whether processing is synchronous or asynchronous, or any prerequisites or side effects. Given readOnlyHint is false, the write nature is already annotated, but the description fails to provide additional context for this mutation tool.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the action and resource. There is no wasted text or redundant repetition of schema information.

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?

The tool appears among a large family of KB training tools, but the description does not explain how this fits or when to choose it over others. It also lacks information about return values or processing behavior, and the absence of an output schema leaves a significant gap for a write operation.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters. The description adds modest value by stating documents are 'free-form objects', which clarifies the flexible structure of the array items beyond the schema's empty object definition. No extra semantics for rag_id are provided.

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 ingests an array of document objects into a knowledge base, using a specific verb ('Ingest') and resource ('knowledge base'). The mention of 'each document is a free-form object' distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle specific formats like text, website, or PDFs.

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 implies usage for general document arrays but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like lyzr_kb_train_text or lyzr_kb_train_pdf. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, making the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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