ingest_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully reveals that file_path reads locally without loading content into context, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, overwrite behavior, or response format. This is partial but not complete transparency.

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 a single tight sentence that front-loads the core action, then gives the most important invocation guidance. No words are wasted and the parenthetical rationale is efficient.

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 moderate-complexity tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential decision rule between file_path and text and explains why file_path is preferred. It could mention what happens after ingestion (e.g., return value, errors), but the current content is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already covers all four parameters at 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by establishing that file_path and text are mutually exclusive alternatives, and by explaining the practical advantage of file_path. This goes beyond simply restating parameter names.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Ingest'), target resource ('a document into a Locus dataspace'), and the two accepted input modes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_documents, get_document, and delete_document.

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?

It provides clear guidance on how to invoke the tool: prefer file_path over text, and explains why using file_path avoids loading content into context. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use them, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to make tool selection straightforward.

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