knowledge_ingest_submit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It extensively discloses side effects: queues proposals, writes a durable summary, backs up the original, clears the inbox copy, and defers memory pinning until 'dim review'. This exceeds expectations and prevents surprise.

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 main purpose, and every clause provides essential information. It is efficient and well-structured without redundancy.

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 all critical aspects: purpose, source, sequence, side effects, and post-conditions. It even references the external prompt for further guidance. Extremely complete for a tool with two parameters.

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 context about the origin of claims but does not meaningfully enhance the parameters beyond what the schema already explains ('exactly as shown by knowledge_pending', '0–12 durable, scoped, falsifiable claims').

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 identifies the action ('Submit'), the object ('FALSIFIABLE claims'), and the source ('pending knowledge doc'), distinguishing it from siblings like knowledge_pending and memory_write. It also specifies the outcome ('Queues them as proposals'), leaving no doubt about the tool's role.

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?

It conveys when to use ('from a pending knowledge doc') and references a workflow step ('see the knowledge_ingest prompt'), but does not explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use this tool. The 'only after dim review' note implies a follow-up process, adding useful context.

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