ingest_data

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that re-ingesting with same source updates content, and notes custom metadata. Lacks mention of whether it appends or overwrites, and no info on return value or error handling.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use cases, update behavior, alternative tool.

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?

Completeness is high given no output schema or annotations. Covers input, update semantics, and sibling differentiation. Minor gap: no mention of return type or success indication.

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 0%, but description provides context for parameters: explains purpose of source (update later) and format options (text, html, markdown). Does not detail content parameter beyond 'text content directly' or custom metadata structure.

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?

Clear verb-resource pair: 'Add text content directly.' Distinguishes from sibling tool ingest_file by explicitly saying 'instead of from a file' and listing use cases.

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 (for fetched web pages, copied text, markdown strings) and when not to use (use ingest_file for files on disk). Also mentions re-ingesting capability.

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