create_knowledge_base_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that articles become indexed and searchable by the AI assistant, which is a useful behavioral insight. However, it lacks details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or immediate availability, leaving gaps.

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 concise with 5 sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding relevant context about indexing and content guidelines. It is not verbose, but the skill reference could be streamlined. Overall, it is efficiently 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description adequately covers the operation's nature, the indexing behavior, and content expectations. It does not describe the output but relies on the output schema. It is complete for a creation tool with good sibling support.

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% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds general guidance on content quality and indexing but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. For example, it reinforces that resource_paths and abstract_entities are for indexing, which the schema already implies.

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 it creates a new Knowledge Base article, with specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new Knowledge Base article'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete, get, list, and update by explicitly being a creation tool.

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 context that the article should be 'informative operational knowledge' and references a skill for article scoping. It implies when to use (to add KB articles) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, given sibling tools are clearly different operations, the intended use is clear.

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