kb_add

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 discloses that drafts are saved locally to ~/.workiva/kb/drafts/ and later promoted via PR, and explains parameter syntax. However, it does not describe behavior on duplicate entry_id or error cases.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the purpose and using bullet-like format for parameter details. It could be slightly tighter but is effective.

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 10 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers key aspects: when to use, parameter semantics, and the end-to-end workflow (local draft, human PR). It lacks some parameter guidance and output details, but overall is fairly 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining entry_id format, severity options, symptom as search key, tags format, and api_version. However, it omits details for 5 parameters (title, problem, surface, evidence, resolution), leaving gaps.

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 purpose: 'Record a newly discovered Workiva quirk so nobody researches it twice.' It uses a specific verb ('record') and resource ('quirk'), and is distinct from sibling tools like kb_search (searching) and kb_list (listing).

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'Add an entry whenever you lost more than a few minutes to something not obvious from the docs.' It implies not to use for trivial things and contrasts with read-only sibling tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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