document_ingest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation writes to a separate reference bank and returns a specific object {source, chunks_stored, chunks_total}, giving the agent a clear outcome model. It does not mention overwrite/idempotency behavior or error conditions, but the core mutation and return contract are transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence establishes the action and store semantics, and the second sentence gives the return contract. There is no filler or redundant restatement; every sentence contributes.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with complete schema descriptions and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the store purpose, the file domain, and the return shape. Minor gaps remain around duplicate handling and failure modes, but an agent can invoke this tool correctly with the supplied information.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. Both path and source are already fully described in the schema: path is server-side and container-aware, and source defaults to the filename. The main description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action, 'Index a file into the reference bank,' and defines that bank as a separate store for background documents (papers, manuals, codebases) kept apart from conversational memory. This clearly differentiates document_ingest from the many memory_* siblings and from document_search, which is the retrieval counterpart.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: for background reference documents such as papers, manuals, and codebases, and it explicitly distinguishes these from conversational memory. It does not name the alternative tool (e.g., memory_store), but 'kept apart from conversational memory' strongly implies the boundary between this tool and the memory_* family.

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