create_kb

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that creation is asynchronous and that a job_id is returned, which is essential operational information. However, it does not mention failure behavior, required access to the folder, side effects, or that the job can be tracked via get_job.

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?

A single sentence packs the core purpose, the source scope, the async nature, and the return value without any filler. Every word earns its place and the most decision-relevant information comes 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?

For the required parameters, the description plus schema names are sufficient to make a basic call. However, with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no mention of chunking semantics or job monitoring via get_job, the description is only minimally complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only clarifies the meaning of folder_path (a folder of PDFs) and loosely implies kb_name names the KB. The chunk_max, chunk_min, chunk_overlap, and skip_existing parameters receive no semantic explanation, leaving a significant gap for a six-parameter tool.

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 ('create'), a clear resource ('kb'), a precise source scope ('all PDFs in a folder'), and a notable execution trait (async + job_id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_document, which handles individual documents, and delete_kb, which removes a 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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you want to build a knowledge base from a bulk set of PDFs in a folder rather than adding documents one by one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the folder-scoped wording is contextually strong enough.

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