acm_ingest

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It describes the multi-step process and idempotency/duplicate avoidance, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or what happens when classification fails.

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?

Well-structured with Args and Returns sections. First sentence captures purpose. No redundant sentences, although length is moderate for a pipeline tool.

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 complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the ingestion process, parameters, and return format adequately. Could mention potential errors or prerequisites.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds significant value. It fully describes cards_json fields and on_exact_match options. The verbose parameter only gets a default mention, but its simplicity compensates.

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 it processes candidate cards via normalization, classification, deduplication, decision, and persistence. It provides a specific verb+resource but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like acm_auto_classify or acm_resolve.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It details the on_exact_match parameter behavior but does not specify use cases or exclusions for sibling tools.

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