retell_create_knowledge_base

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the basic action and inputs but does not disclose any side effects or operational details, such as whether URL crawling is asynchronous, whether duplicates are handled, or what the returned object looks like. For a create tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word adds value, and it is immediately scannable. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 tool with three simple, well-described parameters and no output schema, this description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and the two input modes. It lacks guidance on follow-up actions or return value, but given the simplicity and high schema coverage, the gap is minor.

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 value by explicitly stating that you can provide plain-text sources, URLs, or both, which clarifies the relationship between knowledge_base_texts and knowledge_base_urls—something not apparent from the schema alone. This slightly exceeds the baseline.

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) and the resource (knowledge base for RAG), and it mentions that you can provide plain-text sources, URLs, or both, which gives a good sense of what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from retell_add_knowledge_base_sources, but the verb 'create' and the mention of 'new' make the primary purpose clear.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need to create a new knowledge base with initial sources. It does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over sibling tools like add/delete/list. A mention of adding sources later would have made it a 5, but as-is it's solid.

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