ghl_kb_create_knowledge_base

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the behavioral constraint of a knowledge base limit (max 15 per location), but does not disclose other traits like creation side effects (e.g., default settings) or error scenarios. The limit is a positive addition but leaves gaps.

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 plus endpoint details, making it concise and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing constraints separately) to improve readability for agents.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description should cover return value expectations (e.g., created resource ID) and common errors (e.g., limit exceeded). It does not. The sibling tools imply a broader CRUD context but the description remains isolated. The limit is useful but insufficient for full autonomous invocation.

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% since the 'body' parameter has a description, albeit generic ('Request body...'). The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it neither explains the purpose of 'name', 'locationId', nor 'description'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage, but no enhancement from the description.

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 a new knowledge base' and includes a key constraint (max 15 per location). It is specific to the create operation, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ghl_kb_update_knowledge_base' or 'ghl_kb_delete_knowledge_base'. However, it does not elaborate on what a knowledge base represents within the system.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ghl_kb_update_knowledge_base' for modifications. It only provides a constraint (max 15 per location) but no context on prerequisites (e.g., locationId must exist) or complex workflows. No when-not-to-use advice.

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