knowledge_ingest

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

Adds crucial validation behavior not covered by annotations: 'unknown keys are rejected with allowed name:type pairs'. This disclosure of strict schema enforcement is vital for error handling. Could improve by addressing the idempotentHint=false implication (duplicate creation on retry).

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/Returns sections and a front-loaded purpose statement. Every sentence adds value: validation rules, prerequisite tip, and return type reference. Slightly formal structure but zero waste.

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?

Appropriate for a 2-parameter tool with existing output schema. References KnowledgeIngestResult rather than duplicating return documentation. Covers validation behavior essential for write operations. Missing only minor details like rate limits or maximum object size.

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?

With 50% schema coverage (only 'properties' has a description), the Args section compensates by adding 'Target collection name' for the enum-based collection parameter and clarifying that values must match the schema. The tip also clarifies expected content for the properties object.

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?

Opens with specific verb 'insert' and resource 'knowledge collection'. The word 'Manually' effectively distinguishes it from automated ingestion siblings like content_analyze or video_analyze. Validation details further clarify its specific role in the knowledge_* tool family.

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 explicit workflow guidance via the tip to call knowledge_schema first, establishing a clear prerequisite. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions or direct comparisons to alternatives like content_analyze for automated extraction scenarios.

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