ingest_material_datasheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the business-tier requirement and that results persist to a library, but it never says what verification actually does, whether unverified claims are rejected, what happens when save is false, or what the agent must do about review_acknowledged / request_first_class_support.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the second sentence restates it almost verbatim with a marketing tone, and the upgrade URL adds bulk without behavioral value.

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 11-parameter write/persist tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque claims array needs far more: expected claim structure, validation behavior, and save semantics are all missing. The description is inadequate for the complexity.

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?

At 73% coverage the schema entries are mostly bare defaults ('Default: false.'), not semantic explanations, and the two required free-form inputs (claims, datasheet_text) are undocumented — claims is even an array with an empty item schema. The description adds no meaning for any of the 11 parameters, e.g. the format claims should take or where datasheet_text comes from.

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 first sentence states a specific verb pair and resource: verify quoted datasheet values and build a structured material profile. It implicitly distinguishes itself from read_material_datasheet and list_ingested_materials by naming the 'ingested-materials library' as the destination, though it never names those siblings 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?

Only a gating condition is given ('Requires Kiln Business'); there is no guidance on when to use this versus read_material_datasheet (already-extracted data) or list_ingested_materials. Nothing explains when save should be true or when review_acknowledged matters.

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