ingest_procedure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether ingestion is idempotent, what happens if a procedure with the same name/version already exists, whether it overwrites existing content, or whether any permissions are required. 'Ingest' at least implies a write operation, which is the only behavioral signal present.

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 single sentence is not padded, but four words for a four-parameter mutation tool is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no structure to front-load because there is effectively no content.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a 0%-coverage four-parameter schema, the description supplies none of the context an agent needs to call this tool correctly. Whatever behavior is expected of ingestion must be guessed.

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 0% across four parameters (name, version, content, tags), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. It does not explain that 'version' is presumably a version identifier, that 'content' is the procedure body, or how 'tags' are used. With zero schema coverage, the description was required to compensate and does not.

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 verb and resource ('Ingest a new procedure'), so the general action is identifiable. However, 'ingest' is left undefined and there is no differentiation from the sibling tool ingest_exemplar, which also ingests content. It is the minimum viable statement of purpose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as ingest_exemplar, update_procedure_block, or knowledge_ingest_* tools. The agent must infer entirely from the name.

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