atlas_ingest_genetic_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly marks this as a write operation ('Store') and adds a scoping behavior ('Focus on SNPs relevant...'), but it does not explain how existing SNP data is handled, whether irrelevant SNPs are ignored or rejected, or what happens after ingestion.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and data source; the second adds domain scope. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, an agent would still be uncertain about operational expectations: whether ingestion appends or replaces data, whether out-of-scope SNPs are silently dropped, and what the response contains. The schema fully covers inputs, but the description leaves these behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with detailed explanation of `source` and `snps`, including an example of the nested structure and field requirements. The description itself adds no parameter-level details, but the schema is sufficient, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Store' and the resource 'SNP/genetic data from services like 23andMe or Ancestry', making the tool's purpose explicit. It also names the relevant domain (performance, stress response, sleep, cognition) and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like atlas_ingest_resume or atlas_ingest_health_data.

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 useful context on when to use the tool: when storing genetic data from consumer DNA services, and it narrows scope to SNPs relevant to performance, stress response, sleep, and cognition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or negative cases, but the sibling ingest tools are different enough that this scoping gives an agent sufficient direction.

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