content_ingest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses validation, SHA-256 hash issuance, version bumping on changed re-ingestion, and named blockers for missing rights, claim sources, or alt-text. It stops short of describing authentication needs, exact failure modes, or the response shape.

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?

Three dense sentences are front-loaded with purpose, then behavioral traits, then blockers. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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 complex ingestion tool with a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about payload expectations, validation, hash versioning, and blockers. It could be more complete with permission requirements or response details, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the core contract.

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%, and the sole parameter is an opaque required 'content' object. The description compensates well by enumerating the expected nested components: masters and provenance, copy, claims with sources, rights per asset, accessibility assets, disclosure record, surfaces, and schedule. It does not give exact field names or types, so it is not a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource: ingest a canonical content object. It enumerates the payload components, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly position the tool against siblings such as content_get or variant_revise, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains what happens during ingestion and re-ingestion, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling tool handles related tasks.

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