memory.ingest_raw

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

Discloses key behavior: pipeline handles extraction/classification/persisting autonomously. Notes cost (LLM extraction). With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it covers the main behavioral traits but omits potential side effects or required permissions.

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?

Content is front-loaded with imperative instruction, usage guidance follows, then example. Every sentence adds value. Could condense slightly (e.g., remove 'com' contractions for international agents) but not wasteful.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers the use case, parameter roles, and when not to use. Lacks explicit return value description (what does user get back?) and does not mention error handling for missing/invalid source_kind.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for all 4 params: explains 'source_kind' (e.g., 'slack'), 'payload' as text, 'project_hint' as optional override with default behavior (derive from workspace). 'domain_hint' is not explained but is optional/nullable.

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 the verb 'ingere' (ingest) and the resource (raw text/blob), includes an explicit use case, and distinguishes from siblings like 'memory.upsert' and 'memory.manual.create'.

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 when to use (unstructured blob) and when NOT to use (structured content), names alternatives (memory.upsert/memory.manual.create), mentions cost trade-off (LLM extraction), and provides an example.

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