Train KB from XLSX

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description adds no additional behavioral disclosure. It omits important details like whether existing KB content is replaced, whether training is asynchronous, or any file size or processing constraints. It merely restates the obvious action.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action and target, making it highly concise and well structured.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only a minimal statement. It does not clarify what the tool returns, whether training is synchronous, or how it affects existing knowledge base state. Annotations cover mutation status but not operational expectations, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters, including chunk_size, chunk_overlap, and parser_config. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond the file type, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Upload and train an XLSX spreadsheet into a knowledge base.' The XLSX target differentiates it from siblings like lyzr_kb_train_text and lyzr_kb_train_website, making purpose 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 makes the use case clear: it is for training an XLSX spreadsheet into a knowledge base. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use it, but the XLSX-specific context is strong enough to guide selection among the sibling train tools.

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