ingest_import_folder_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure, and it does reveal the key side effect: it writes ingest.yaml. It also clarifies 'audio-only, no copy', which prevents the agent from assuming audio files are copied. However, it does not say whether existing files are overwritten, whether dry_run prevents writes, or what other state changes might occur.

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 free of fluff and front-loads the main action, but at 12 words it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no usage context. It is concise but not appropriately sized.

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?

The core action is clear, and the output schema exists so return-value documentation is not required. However, the description omits parameter semantics and usage guidance, making it incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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 compensate. It gives a hint that audio_dir is a folder path and that ingest.yaml is the output, but it never mentions dry_run, out_manifest, or speakers_override. Only minimal meaning is added beyond the bare schema property names.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb and resource: scan a recorder export folder and write ingest.yaml. 'Audio-only, no copy' adds useful scope. It is not explicitly differentiated from sibling ingest tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 it is used on a recorder export folder for ingestion, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives among the many ingest-related sibling tools. The agent must infer when this tool is preferred over ingest_suggest_alignment_tool or ingest_verify_alignment_tool.

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