june_ingest

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

Description discloses that it is a write operation returning write counts, but with no annotations provided, it lacks details on idempotency, error behavior, permissions, or side effects. Mentions 'exactly as given' implying no transformation, but overall minimal behavioral context beyond the basic mutation nature.

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?

The description is only two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence provides usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the first sentence could be slightly tighter.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage but lacks parameter details, behavioral traits, and return value structure beyond 'write counts'. It is functional but not comprehensive.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description only hints at the parameters via 'node rows' and 'edge proposals' but does not explain the structure, fields, or purpose of 'nodes', 'proposals', or 'idempotency_key'. The description adds insufficient value for parameter understanding.

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 the tool pushes explicit graph structure (node rows + edge proposals) exactly as given, using specific verb 'push' and resource 'graph structure'. It distinguishes from sibling june_remember by specifying that june_remember is for ordinary 'remember this' information.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use ONLY when you already have structured nodes/edges with ids and kinds' and directly contrasts with june_remember for ordinary information, providing clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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