ingest_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: local execution, no API cost, and persistent writes to a ChromaDB vector store. It stops short of mutation-relevant behavior — whether re-ingesting the same file duplicates entries, whether it overwrites, expected runtime, or failure behavior on unsupported media.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then expands the pipeline in three short lines. Minor filler in the parenthetical '(locally, for free)', but overall tight and easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the sole parameter is fully documented. The remaining gap is side-effect/idempotency information for an unannotated mutating tool, which an agent arguably needs before calling it repeatedly.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents video_path and its supported extensions. The description adds nothing beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 when structured data does the work.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Ingest a video file into the RAG system') and then names the concrete pipeline (Whisper transcription, timed chunking, embedding, ChromaDB storage). An agent can immediately tell this is the write/ingest counterpart to the read-oriented siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implies the usage context — you must ingest before search_video/ask_video can find anything — but never states that sequencing, nor any prerequisites (file must exist on disk, one-time indexing cost, what to do with already-ingested files). No when-not guidance or alternatives are given.

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