Knowledge Ingest

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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: properties are validated against the collection schema and unknown keys are rejected with allowed name:type pairs — useful failure-mode disclosure. It doesn't mention duplicate handling despite idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a tip: the action is front-loaded, the validation rule follows, and the prerequisite call is last as a distinct actionable note. No 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the write/validation semantics are covered. For a mutation tool with idempotentHint=false, the only notable omission is whether re-inserting the same data creates duplicates.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining that 'properties' must conform to the collection schema and listing the rejection behavior for unknown keys, which is meaningful for an open additionalProperties object. It does not enumerate expected property shapes (delegated to knowledge_schema).

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Manually insert data into a knowledge collection.' The word 'manually' implicitly separates it from automated ingestion siblings (source_ingest), and the required 'collection' enum makes the target unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the operation is clear.

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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite/alternative route: 'call knowledge_schema(collection=...) first to see expected properties.' That is actionable guidance for how to use the tool successfully. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. use knowledge_query/knowledge_search for reads instead).

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