knitbrain_wiki_ingest

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses multiple side effects: writing/updating a page, rebuilding index, appending log, and stubbing cross-referenced pages. This provides good transparency about the tool's behavioral impact.

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: the first lists the tool's actions concisely, the second provides usage context. No wasted words; efficient and clear.

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?

The description covers the core actions and use case. However, it omits return value information (e.g., success/error), which would be helpful given no output schema. Still, it adequately conveys the tool's primary behavior.

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 coverage is 50%, with descriptions for 'links' and 'content' but not 'kind' or 'title'. The description adds context about stubbing for links and terse synthesis for content, but does not explain 'kind' enum values or 'title' requirements beyond the schema. Insufficient compensation for coverage gaps.

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: 'Ingest a synthesized note into the compounding wiki-brain' with specific actions (writes/updates, rebuilds index, appends log, stubs cross-references). It effectively distinguishes from siblings by specifying wiki-brain ingestion versus other tools like knitbrain_wiki_lint or knitbrain_wiki_query.

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 description provides explicit guidance: 'Use to compound knowledge across the session ... instead of letting it vanish into chat.' This states when to use but does not directly name alternatives or exclusions, though the context implies not for raw sources.

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