Train KB from Text File

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds the 'train' semantics (adding to a knowledge base) but does not disclose potential side effects like whether it appends or replaces existing content, or any rate limits. This is adequate but not rich beyond the 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and target resource type.

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 the moderate complexity (8 parameters, multiple sibling training tools) and absence of an output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It does not explain how this file-based training differs from text-based training, nor does it provide guidance on obtaining the 'rag_id' or interpreting the result. Yet the annotations and schema cover safety and parameter details, making it functional but not 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 100%, meaning every parameter has a description. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents parameters like 'rag_id', 'chunk_size', and 'file_content_base64'.

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 verb 'Upload and train' and the resource 'a plain-text (.txt) file into a knowledge base', which is specific and distinguishes it from website or other file-type training tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named sibling 'lyzr_kb_train_text', which may handle raw text input rather than a file upload.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lyzr_kb_train_text or lyzr_kb_train_documents. It does not mention prerequisites such as creating a knowledge base first or how to obtain the required 'rag_id'. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'train' and the file type.

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