ingest_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does a solid job: it discloses crawling, parsing, indexing, extraction of specific content types, and conditional synthesis of an implementation recipe when taskContext is provided. It stops short of a full picture by not stating what the tool returns when taskContext is absent, nor what happens on crawl failures or whether ingestion overwrites existing indexed content.

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 sentences contain no filler: the first packs the core action, the second lists extracted artifacts and the conditional recipe pathway. The most important information is front-loaded, and the structure allows an agent to grasp purpose and behavior quickly.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the main workflow and the taskContext branch well. However, it leaves important gaps: the default return outcome when taskContext is omitted is unspecified, and there is no mention of error conditions, time cost of crawling, or how ingestion interacts with existing sources in DocOrbit.

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?

All six parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal parameter-level value by echoing 'any URL or raw content' for url/content and by adding 'exact code and API details' to the taskContext behavior, but it mostly reinforces what the schema already states rather than introducing new parameter meaning.

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 opens with specific verbs ('Ingest, crawl, parse, and index authoritative documentation... into DocOrbit') and names the resource and action precisely. It clearly differentiates this ingestion/write action from read-focused siblings like search_docs and get_doc by enumerating distinct artifacts it produces: semantic chunks, OpenAPI endpoints, code examples, and pitfalls.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool—when authoritative docs need to be added to DocOrbit—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tools are named, and the relationship to tools like list_sources or find_api is left unstated, so the agent must infer routing from the tool name and general purpose.

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