create_knowledge_base_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that articles become indexed and searchable, which is a side effect, but it does not specify other behaviors like validation, failure modes, or any prerequisites. The reference to 'article scoping + lifecycle' is vague and could be expanded to explain how creation affects existing resources.

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 two sentences plus a skill reference and content guidance—tight with no fluff. The key action is front-loaded, and the additional context (indexing, content type) is succinct. Every sentence earns its place.

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 availability of an output schema and a well-described input schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It could be more complete by mentioning that the workspace must exist or that content is validated, but we have the skill reference and the schema's parameter descriptions filling gaps. Overall, it is solid.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a note about content being 'informative operational knowledge,' which contextualizes the 'content' parameter, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., title max length, resource_paths examples). No additional explanation is given for parameters like abstract_entities.

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 action ('Create a new Knowledge Base article') with a specific resource (knowledge base article) and workspace context, distinguishing it from sibling operations like update, delete, and list. It also explains the broader purpose—indexing into the Knowledge Overlay Graph for searchability—which reinforces its unique role.

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 on when to use (for adding informative operational knowledge) and gives examples of suitable content, distinguishing it from other tools. However, it does not explicitly discuss when NOT to use it (e.g., for updating) or mention alternative tools, though the purpose is clear enough that exclusions are implied.

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