knowledge_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key non-obvious behavior: 'The asset metadata is stored locally. The actual content is processed by an external knowledge service.' However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps for a create operation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately concise for a registration tool.

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 7-parameter schema with full documentation and no output schema, the description conveys the essential distinction between local metadata and external content processing. However, it lacks critical context such as success/return behavior, whether the operation is idempotent, and how it relates to sibling tools like update or wiki_ingest, making it only minimally complete.

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 minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema—it mentions the two asset types (already in the enum) and hints at the external service (relating to service_url), but does not clarify optional parameters like branch or repo_url.

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 tool's function: 'Register a knowledge asset (wiki or code-graph) for the team.' It uses a specific verb ('register') with a defined resource ('knowledge asset') and narrows scope with the two types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like knowledge_get, knowledge_list, and knowledge_delete.

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 gives useful context by explaining that metadata is stored locally while actual content is processed externally, implying this tool is for registration, not content ingestion. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like wiki_ingest or codegraph_index, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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