create_knowledge_file

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 includes '[mutation]' to indicate write operation, and states it creates a new file. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond creation. With no annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes examples and purpose without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and well-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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter context reasonably well. It lacks specifics on return values or error handling, but for a creation tool with a complete schema, it is fairly complete. Sibling tools handle updates and deletions, so context is clear.

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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds context that no file upload is needed, complementing the optional filename. However, since schema already documents parameters, the description adds only marginal value, meeting baseline for high coverage.

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 'Crear archivo de conocimiento desde texto' (create knowledge file from text), with specific examples of content types (promotions, policies, FAQs) and the benefit of no manual upload. It distinguishes from siblings like edit_knowledge_snippet and update_knowledge_file by emphasizing creation from text.

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 says 'Ideal para añadir información como promociones, políticas, instrucciones, FAQs, etc. sin necesidad de subir un archivo manualmente', providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like upload_docqa_file, but the context is sufficient.

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