knowmind_upload_document

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

Beyond annotations (non-readonly, non-destructive), the description discloses that it performs chunking, embedding, upsert behavior, and requires write scope. This adds significant behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 three sentences long and front-loads the main action and processing steps. It is reasonably concise, though the first sentence could be slightly shorter. No unnecessary information.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the input requirements and behavior (upsert, processing). It could mention success/return value, but overall it provides sufficient context for a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage.

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 100% with per-parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Ingestet' and resource 'Dokument' clearly indicate the action of uploading a document. It distinguishes from sibling tools (linking, listing, etc.) by describing the ingestion process (chunking, embeddings). However, it could be more explicit about the primary use case.

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 mentions that write scope is required and that it performs an upsert by title, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it's for persisting documents, but no direct guidance is given.

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