create_kb_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that 'answer' accepts HTML and that 'is_faq=True' publishes to the public FAQ, adding meaningful context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, or response behavior, preventing a perfect score.

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 compact: a single opening sentence followed by a bullet-point list of parameters. Each bullet is concise and front-loaded with the parameter name and a short explanation. There is no redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

All four parameters are adequately described, and the tool's input semantics are clear. However, with no output schema, the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., created article ID or confirmation), leaving a minor gap for a create operation.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: name as title, answer as content/solution, category_id as optional, and is_faq with its default and effect. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare parameter names and types.

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: 'Cree un nouvel article dans la base de connaissances' (Create a new article in the knowledge base). The verb 'create' and the resource 'article' make the purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from sibling tools like update_kb_article or list_kb_articles.

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 usage for creating new KB articles and provides contextual guidance on optional parameters (category_id, is_faq) and their effects. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to use a different tool (e.g., update_kb_article for modifications), so it falls short of a 5.

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