create_knowledge_cluster

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the important refusal behavior for federated structured KBs, explains why (cannot query across them), and notes the exemption for unstructured document KBs. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the create action is implicitly mutating and the verb makes that clear.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the key constraint. Every word adds value, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 a create tool with an output schema and many sibling tools, the description covers the core operation and the most critical limitation (federation). It could also mention that the referenced knowledge bases must already exist or that list_knowledge_bases can help discover IDs, but the essential context is present.

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 adds meaning to 'knowledge_base_ids' by saying the cluster is created 'from knowledge bases' and clarifies that 'instructions' is optional. However, it does not add any detail to 'name' or 'description', leaving those to rely on their obvious names.

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 immediately states a specific action: 'Create a knowledge cluster from knowledge bases, optionally with instructions.' This clearly identifies the resource and operation, and the federation caveat helps distinguish it from sibling cluster tools like get_knowledge_cluster or delete_knowledge_cluster.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (creating a cluster from existing knowledge bases) and explicitly states a when-not condition (refuses federated structured KBs). It does not name alternative tools for the refused case, but the exclusion is concrete and useful.

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