Ingest Source

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: it creates a markdown file, appends a log entry, and returns proposedEdits for index and related pages. It also clarifies that the returned edits must be applied via notes.create or notes.edit. However, it does not detail permissions, error scenarios, or side effects.

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 concise with two paragraphs, each adding value. The first paragraph details core functionality, and the second clarifies vault behavior. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains effective without extraneous 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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description covers the core workflow but fails to explain most parameters. It provides some output context via 'proposedEdits for index + related concept/entity pages', but overall completeness is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must explain parameters, but it only mentions 'slug' implicitly via the file path. Most parameters (title, content, sourceType, url, etc.) are not explained, leaving the AI agent without guidance on how to use them.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'File a new source into the wiki: create Sources/<slug>.md with canonical frontmatter...'. It uses a specific verb ('ingest') and resource ('new source'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like notes.create and notes.edit by explaining that the returned proposedEdits are to be applied via those tools.

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 provides usage guidance regarding the vault: 'Operates on the session-active vault... unless an explicit vaultPath argument is passed'. This clarifies when to use the vaultPath override. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives for similar tasks.

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