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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses idempotency (op_id is dedup key), the permanent unavailability of delete, the 1-hour TTL for session tokens, and enumerates all possible response envelopes including error cases like vault_timeout and payload_too_large. This is exceptionally transparent behavior disclosure.

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 dense paragraph with no fluff; every sentence provides operational value. However, it could benefit from structured bullets or sections (auth, args, response envelopes) to improve readability for an AI agent. Given the complexity, the length is warranted, but the structure could be clearer.

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 tool's complexity, the description is remarkably complete. It covers authentication details (including two token retrieval methods), ownership restrictions, idempotency semantics, deletion policy, and every possible response envelope. No output schema exists, so the description fully explains return values, making it self-sufficient for correct 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all parameters (doc_type, title, body, source_path, meta) and adds constraints: body ≤100 KiB, source_path and meta are optional. It also notes meta is an object. However, it does not elaborate on allowed doc_type values or the internal structure of meta, leaving some semantics under-specified.

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 opens with 'Ingest a new document into kapoost's vault (wave 2)', which clearly identifies the action (ingest/write) and the target resource (kapoost's vault). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mysloodsiewnia_get, list, search, and status, making its role as the write operation explicit.

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 strong context by stating it is OWNER-ONLY and detailing the required Authorization: Bearer <owner token>. It explains how to obtain the token via bootstrap_session or shell command. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, though the context is clear.

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